PDA

View Full Version : [Merged] Cold Fusion Claims


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Dancing David
13th June 2011, 11:09 AM
actually I'm hoping the replication issue, which I believe is material science in nature, may be solved. Last weekend Brian Ahrens was supposed to present information at MIT on an lenr experiment that is low output but easy to replicate. I haven't heard if it happened or not yet.

That will be cool.

Dancing David
13th June 2011, 11:12 AM
Sounds like calling a spade a spade is just too much for you.

A valid argument is valid regardless of who makes it.

Dancing David
13th June 2011, 11:14 AM
nathan No I'm not going to site specific papers, but I think there is a lot of research supporting lenr reactions. Even the US government is starting to acknowledge that.

Waving your arms is not an argument, that is so vague as to be beyond debate. :)

If you can't cite papers then all you have is nothing to talk about. There is a lot of research, there is no support for LENR.

nathan
13th June 2011, 11:25 AM
Nathan We are talking over 20 years. Things are starting to loosen up a bit. You never heard of agencies of the government talking pro lenr until recently. So you can have it both ways over time.

Are you complaining that until recently lenr lacked evidence, without which it was difficult to get funding? Why do you think it should be any different?

ignoring all the funding McFate pointed out.

unclep2k
13th June 2011, 11:29 AM
nathan There is always a chance any budget isn't going to be enough to get a final product. Like when my wife decides to remodel the house.

unclep2k
13th June 2011, 11:33 AM
You guys can have your way with me later. I have to go mow some grass.

nathan
13th June 2011, 12:01 PM
nathan There is always a chance any budget isn't going to be enough to get a final product. Like when my wife decides to remodel the house.

once again, your evasion is noted.

Craig B
13th June 2011, 12:19 PM
BeAChooser

I think it means the October release is still on. When talking about his inability to and concerns regarding being able to patent the device/process internationally, he's spoken specifically of the planned small home units. The large industrial units like the Greek 1 MW installation do not appear to be motivating this concern (I suppose since they can be more easily controlled and prevented from being taken apart and examined). But I could be wrong.

But the home units are the sexy stuff! Who cares how they boil water in an engineering works in Greece?

Do I detect a sort of "mission creep" in the Rossi enterprise?

See http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3179019.ece

- When would the first products reach the American market?
Cassarino: We’re hoping to get something here hopefully by late fall or beginning of next year (2012) as our first product to demonstrate. We’re not going down the same path as the Greeks (Defkalion Green Technologies) to develop home heating; we’re not really looking at that as a low hanging fruit.
- What would be your first kind of product?
Cassarino: I think this one megawatt (like the one planned in Greece – editor’s note) for heating and for power generation is probably the first, whether it’s off grid or mobile. ( ... )
- Could you see other applications than heating or power in the future?
Cassarino: Oh yeah, one of the companies we’re talking with sees this actually as a high density fuel. You can use your imagination on the extremes of all that – space travel, or to having the trucks deliver fuel to the front lines in battle fields. I think the applications are unlimited, and even not thought about yet.

If Rossi is so concerned about the secrecy of the device, can we really expect them to be mass marketed as "off grid or mobile" units in the United States by fall this year or early 2012?

And having them zooming about in space or carrying fuel to the front line of battle is to risk them falling into the hands of the Taliban - or into the tentacles of bug-eyed monsters from the planet Zorg. God knows which would be worse!

attaboy
13th June 2011, 12:24 PM
The point cuddle was making (i think) is that you cannot avoid FULLY disclosing everything in a patent, failure to do so make it invalid/useless to protect your invention.

Not true. There are ways around making a full disclosure yet still making the patent valid.

Belz...
13th June 2011, 12:24 PM
Maybe that sounds like a lot, but how much has been spent on Tokamak research without any rewards.

Actually there at least has been progress. And we know hot fusion works for a fact.

attaboy
13th June 2011, 12:26 PM
Have you been through the patent process yourself, i.e. you are a patent attorney or have been a named inventor and have gone through the process of application, examination, responding to the examiner's objections etc.?

One doesn't need to go thru all that.

TjW
13th June 2011, 12:27 PM
I am actually a bit of a skeptic myself, and I'm not 100 percent sure lenr research is going to lead to commercial devlopment. I'm just 100 percent sure that the potential is great enough and past research is tantalyzing enough for a hard look.

After you give it a hard look, and nothing turns up, what then? Do you give another hard look, because it's still tantalizing? And after that second hard look, it's still tantalizing, because it would sure be nice if it were true. Is a third hard look justified? A fourth, fifth and sixth?

With a very few word substitutions, yours could be a statement from a psi believer, or a Bigfoor believer, or a UFO believer, or virtually any conspiracy theorist.

Belz...
13th June 2011, 12:29 PM
Sounds like calling a spade a spade is just too much for you.

If you walk down the street and meet a hobo who gives you the correct solution to some mathematical problem, does the fact that this guy is a homeless child molester with AIDS change anything about the validity of his equation ?

attaboy
13th June 2011, 12:29 PM
That you'd believe a random unlikely claim without evidence is not really a surprise, given your stance in the thread so far.
That's not fair nor correct. You should already realize that I too have some degree of skepticism about e cat.

Aepervius
13th June 2011, 12:29 PM
Not true. There are ways around making a full disclosure yet still making the patent valid.

Please show us. I call BS on that one otherwise.

attaboy
13th June 2011, 12:31 PM
And a valid criticism is a valid criticism, regardless, so you made a double silly statement.

What's your logic here??

pedrone
13th June 2011, 12:34 PM
My God... they are discussing about Ross-Focardi experiment till today !!!!

330 E-Cats are working in Greece just now, and they are discussing the sex of the angels in here
:p

Dancing David
13th June 2011, 12:42 PM
My God... they are discussing about Ross-Focardi experiment till today !!!!

330 E-Cats are working in Greece just now, and they are discussing the sex of the angels in here
:p

Where are these ecats working?

Dancing David
13th June 2011, 12:44 PM
What's your logic here??

Hmmm

No, the whole point is that it is never open to question. A valid criticism is a valid criticism, regardless of the motivations of the person making it.



What a silly statement.

BenBurch
13th June 2011, 12:45 PM
My God... they are discussing about Ross-Focardi experiment till today !!!!

330 E-Cats are working in Greece just now, and they are discussing the sex of the angels in here
:p

:dl:

Which you cannot prove.

attaboy
13th June 2011, 12:45 PM
Attaboy


I've researched some stuff on McKubre by the way. His background isn't as lurid as that of Bockris and Champion (see #1289, page 33), but interesting nonetheless. More soon.

You probably wouldn't give much credence to the TV program "60 Minutes", but they did have a piece on cold fusion awhile back. McKubre was one of the scientists who appeared. They also interviewed some physicists all of whom originally part of the group that debunked cold fusion. But one of these actually made the effort to investigate cold fusion further (forget name). After evaluating the experiment first hand, he was no longer one of the debunkers. Please tell me how I get to this "#1289, page 33".

TjW
13th June 2011, 12:50 PM
Here it is.http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7255718&postcount=1289

attaboy
13th June 2011, 12:53 PM
:dl:

If this were even close to being true, the big money would have bought it already, and somebody would be very, very rich.

Well then explain to me why big money never bought out Edison when he started to get the ball rolling. Or in more recent times, how come big money never bought out Wozniak/Jobs (Apple), Bill Gates (Microsoft), Brin/Page (Google) and a host of others??

attaboy
13th June 2011, 01:01 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the conspiracy theorist's mind. Anyone who disagrees with him is either a shill or incredibly stupid.

Could it actually be that a big money advocate has finally come out front and center on this forum? I wouldn't dismiss that based on this rant. Sounds to me like its quite possible that the big money advocates with their worn out talk of conspiracy theories are starting to get nervous - - maybe even starting to show their true colors.

Horatius
13th June 2011, 01:04 PM
McFate
Maybe that sounds like a lot, but how much has been spent on Tokamak research without any rewards. I don't think anyone ever said there would be a commercial lenr product without lots of research.


Yes, why ever would we suppose that LENR could be properly demonstrated with a budget much lower than that of traditional hot fusion?


I know this old article doesn't prove a thing, but it's kind of interesting if anyone will take a few minutes to read it. kinda shows what some these early scientists went through- whether you believe them or not. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion_pr.html

Almost four stories high, framed in steel beams and tangled in pipes, conduits, cables, and coils, the Joint European Torus (JET) claims to be the largest fusion power experiment in the world. Located near Oxford, England, JET is a monument to big science, its donut-shaped containment vessel dwarfing maintenance workers who enter it in protective suits. Here in this gleaming nuclear cauldron, deuterium gas is energized with 7 million amperes and heated to 300 million degrees Celsius - more than 10 times hotter than the center of the sun. Under these extreme conditions atomic nuclei collide and fuse, liberating energy that could provide virtually limitless power.

Maybe.

High-tension lines run directly to the installation, but they don't take electricity out - they bring it in. For a few magic seconds in 1997, JET managed to return 60 percent of the energy it consumed, but that's the best it's ever done, and is typical of fusion experiments worldwide. The US Department of Energy has predicted that we'll have to wait another five decades, minimum, before fusion power becomes practical. Meanwhile, the United States continues to depend on fossil fuels for 85 percent of its energy.

Many miles away, in the basement of a fine new home in the hills overlooking Santa Fe, New Mexico, a retired scientist named Edmund Storms has built a different kind of fusion reactor. It consists of laboratory glassware, off-the-shelf chemical supplies, two aging Macintosh computers for data acquisition, and an insulated wooden box the size of a kitchen cabinet. While JET's 15 European sponsor-nations have paid about US$1 billion for their hardware, and the US government has spent $14.7 billion on fusion research since 1951 (all figures in 1997 dollars), Storms's apparatus and ancillary gear have cost less than $50,000. Moreover, he claims that his equipment works, generating surplus heat for days at a time.


Oh, right, it's because they've already claimed they can do that.

Using comparisons of funding between massive projects that require huge amounts of engineering and power to those that can be done on a table top, and then claiming you're failing only due to a lack of comparable funding, is just incredibly stupid.

attaboy
13th June 2011, 01:07 PM
A valid argument is valid regardless of who makes it.

C'mon now David, I don't want to get into it with you again, but really. If your statement were true that would mean that anyone in the world could make an argument on anything at all, and according to you it would be valid. Do you really believe that?? Of course maybe it comes down what you mean by valid.

Dancing David
13th June 2011, 01:15 PM
C'mon now David, I don't want to get into it with you again, but really. If your statement were true that would mean that anyone in the world could make an argument on anything at all, and according to you it would be valid. Do you really believe that?? Of course maybe it comes down what you mean by valid.

Your sopihistry shall avail you not, ...

Keep it up, I don't even have to try when you ruin your own stance so well.

So have you found even one research paper that supports LENR?

Iteration2

Dancing David
13th June 2011, 01:16 PM
Could it actually be that a big money advocate has finally come out front and center on this forum? I wouldn't dismiss that based on this rant. Sounds to me like its quite possible that the big money advocates with their worn out talk of conspiracy theories are starting to get nervous - - maybe even starting to show their true colors.

:dl:

Gentlemen start your tin foil hats....

Craig B
13th June 2011, 01:21 PM
Attaboy

Well then explain to me why big money never bought out Edison when he started to get the ball rolling.

Because he and the others you mention promptly produced and marketed their inventions, which (it was clear from the beginning) actually worked. Because they did this, they BECAME "big money" which Rossi would have become too, if his device was obviously valid.

However, maybe Rossi's just not one of these "big money advocates" you see skulking on this thread (if not also hiding under your bed, or wherever).

attaboy
13th June 2011, 01:36 PM
If you walk down the street and meet a hobo who gives you the correct solution to some mathematical problem, does the fact that this guy is a homeless child molester with AIDS change anything about the validity of his equation ?

I thought you would give me more credit than that! Do I come across as being that stupid? Let me tell you a little story.

"""
Back in the 1940's this young piano player arrived in NYC to try to make his way as a jazz musician. Shortly, he was walking down a street when this guy came walking toward him. The guy looked and acted every bit like other homeless people he'd seen who were classified as bums by the locals. Then the young musician recognized the guy, got down on his knees and kissed the guy's hand. The guy was Charlie Parker, arguably the greatest musician of the 20th century. Charlie said "Gimme some money", grabbed the cash and ran off down the street.
"""

But according to my understanding of what you and others seem to have been arguing earlier, you seem to think that if you walked down that street and asked every hobo you ran into for a solution to some problem each answer given would be considered valid. That's the way it came across to me. I really don't think that is what you meant.

Emet
13th June 2011, 01:36 PM
A valid argument is valid regardless of who makes it.

C'mon now David, I don't want to get into it with you again, but really. If your statement were true that would mean that anyone in the world could make an argument on anything at all, and according to you it would be valid. Do you really believe that?? Of course maybe it comes down what you mean by valid.

You seem to be interpreting things that aren't written. DD's sentence is simple and clear.

If you want to start parsing and defining words to fit your view, or misinterpreting simple sentences, perhaps you should join this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=184657).

attaboy
13th June 2011, 01:44 PM
Your sopihistry shall avail you not, ...

Keep it up, I don't even have to try when you ruin your own stance so well.

So have you found even one research paper that supports LENR?

Iteration2

That was quite a lame commentary David. I would have expected more from you. BTW, what's a sopihistry.

Alferd_Packer
13th June 2011, 01:46 PM
A valid argument is valid regardless of who makes it.

C'mon now David, I don't want to get into it with you again, but really. If your statement were true that would mean that anyone in the world could make an argument on anything at all, and according to you it would be valid. Do you really believe that?? Of course maybe it comes down what you mean by valid.

The validity of an argument has nothing to do with the validity of the premises.

This is a perfectly valid argument

If bigfoot is real, then a lot of biologists are going to be embarassed. Bigfoot is real, therefore there are a lot of embarassed biologists out there.

The argument is perfectly valid, the premise, that bigfoot is real, is not.

ben m
13th June 2011, 02:05 PM
Yes, why ever would we suppose that LENR could be properly demonstrated with a budget much lower than that of traditional hot fusion?.

No one is asking for the LENR version of ITER. We're asking for the LENR version of Mark Oliphant's 1932-ish experiment that measured the existence, and cross sections, of fusion reactions.

ITER is a multibillion dollar effort to see how the conditions for Oliphant's reactions scale up. It is not an attempt to see whether or not the reactions happen. Cold fusion has not yet demonstrated any sort of reaction happens at all. Nobody cares yet about how any future cold fusion technology would scale up.

Let's make a table, shall we?

Hot Fusion:

$1000 to show reaction exists. (Done, 1932, Oliphant)
~ $1,000,000 to build a stable, scaleable reaction vessel (Done, 1950s, Artsimovich)
~$6,000,000,000 to build a commercial-scale reaction vessel (under construction)
???
Profit! (not done)


Cold Fusion:

??? to show reaction exists. (Not done)
??? to build a stable, scaleable reaction vessel (Not done)
??? to build a commercial-scale reaction vessel (Not done)
???
Profit! (not done)

Belz...
13th June 2011, 02:16 PM
Could it actually be that a big money advocate has finally come out front and center on this forum?

Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.

I wouldn't dismiss that based on this rant. Sounds to me like its quite possible that the big money advocates with their worn out talk of conspiracy theories are starting to get nervous - - maybe even starting to show their true colors.

What's fun about conspiracy theorists is that they don't know much about reality. Assuming that Big Evil Moneytm is involved, don't you think they'd rather MARKET this technology, become humanity's saviours and make billions ? I, for one, would've been delighted if cold fusion worked. But it doesn't, and reality always wins over hope.

Belz...
13th June 2011, 02:18 PM
Baleeted.

summand
13th June 2011, 02:19 PM
No one is asking for the LENR version of ITER.
Cold Fusion:

Profit! (not done)


I think you are wrong with that point...

Belz...
13th June 2011, 02:20 PM
But according to my understanding of what you and others seem to have been arguing earlier, you seem to think that if you walked down that street and asked every hobo you ran into for a solution to some problem each answer given would be considered valid. That's the way it came across to me. I really don't think that is what you meant.

Ah, so it's your reading comprehension that failed you, then.

Nobody's saying that the argument is valid, prima facie, no matter who says it. We're saying that whom the person is not a factor in the validity of the argument.

attaboy
13th June 2011, 04:06 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.



What's fun about conspiracy theorists is that they don't know much about reality. Assuming that Big Evil Moneytm is involved, don't you think they'd rather MARKET this technology, become humanity's saviours and make billions ? I, for one, would've been delighted if cold fusion worked. But it doesn't, and reality always wins over hope.

What's fun about those who like to talk about conspiracy theorists is that they don't get the big picture.
Here's the big money crowd with these elaborate enterprises in place. They are making billions. Do you think they want some new technology to come along and replace those elaborate enterprises? And since when did big money care about becoming saviors of humanity? I believe its you who needs the reality check. Better not rest your case just yet.

attaboy
13th June 2011, 04:14 PM
Attaboy



Because he and the others you mention promptly produced and marketed their inventions, which (it was clear from the beginning) actually worked. Because they did this, they BECAME "big money" which Rossi would have become too, if his device was obviously valid.

However, maybe Rossi's just not one of these "big money advocates" you see skulking on this thread (if not also hiding under your bed, or wherever).

You make it all sound so simple. Can anyone be sure there wasn't a period where, their inventions were looked upon much as Rossi's is now, and they opted to avoid the big money crowd?

Belz...
13th June 2011, 04:19 PM
What's fun about those who like to talk about conspiracy theorists is that they don't get the big picture.

"The big picture" in this case usually means that there's some greater truth that's independant of the details. Unfortunately this is just a ploy by CTers to ignore the fact that the details, which make up this big picture, don't add up the way they think they do. In order to make a picture, you need the right pixels.

Here's the big money crowd with these elaborate enterprises in place. They are making billions. Do you think they want some new technology to come along and replace those elaborate enterprises?

Yes. You seem to think that, for instance, oil companies care about nothing but oil. They care about money. If they can market some other technology to pump their sales, they will. So what makes you think that this cheap form of energy, if it worked, would not be sold for billions -- nay, trillions -- in profit ?

And since when did big money care about becoming saviors of humanity?

When it makes them richer. Perhaps you didn't follow the sequence of events I outlined for you.

I believe its you who needs the reality check. Better not rest your case just yet.

So far we're just exchanging hypotheticals. So where's your evidence that this technology is being suppressed, as opposed to simply not working ?

Christian Klippel
13th June 2011, 04:38 PM
Yes. You seem to think that, for instance, oil companies care about nothing but oil. They care about money. If they can market some other technology to pump their sales, they will. So what makes you think that this cheap form of energy, if it worked, would not be sold for billions -- nay, trillions -- in profit ?

Because that rational line of thought would immediately destroy all these conspiracy theories. And what would be the imaginary enemy then? And i'm pretty sure that admitting to be at fault is an absolute no-go for these conspiracy nutters.

Greetings,

Chris

pedrone
13th June 2011, 04:40 PM
Which you cannot prove.

What?
the sex of the angels?

:dl:

BeAChooser
13th June 2011, 04:42 PM
Hot Fusion:

$1000 to show reaction exists. (Done, 1932, Oliphant)
~ $1,000,000 to build a stable, scaleable reaction vessel (Done, 1950s, Artsimovich)
~$6,000,000,000 to build a commercial-scale reaction vessel (under construction)



Not sure where you got your numbers.

http://www.economist.com/node/1234632


July 18th 2002

... snip ... Since 1951, America alone has devoted more than $17 billion (see chart) to working out how to fuse atomic nuclei so as to generate an inexhaustible supply of clean, safe power.


Never mind how many more billions the EU countries, Russia, Japan and China devoted to the problem during the same timespan.

And since 2002, we've spent even more. So if Rossi's invention pans out, there sure is going to be a lot of egg on a lot of faces. :D

Belz...
13th June 2011, 04:50 PM
What can I say, BAC... when you know something works, you're more likely to pump money into the project.

Belz...
13th June 2011, 04:55 PM
What's unfortunate about cold fusion is that it's gotten to be on the same level as the JFK assassination and 9/11... it'll always be there. It doesn't matter if it doesn't work. People use it as part of their identity. Believing in it is part of who they are, and as Klippel said, admitting that you're wrong is a big no-no, and not just for nutters.

I haven't checked, but I'm sure Lamarckism still has its supporters...

BenBurch
13th June 2011, 05:01 PM
What can I say, BAC... when you know something works, you're more likely to pump money into the project.

No, don't you understand? That whole "H bomb" thing was a hoax!


;) :D

Belz...
13th June 2011, 05:10 PM
I'm deeply troubled, Ben. When was the last time you had changed you avatar ? I can't remember. Now I'm all confused with this one !

BenBurch
13th June 2011, 05:13 PM
I'm deeply troubled, Ben. When was the last time you had changed you avatar ? I can't remember. Now I'm all confused with this one !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Game_of_life_animated_glider.gif

CORed
13th June 2011, 05:16 PM
What's unfortunate about cold fusion is that it's gotten to be on the same level as the JFK assassination and 9/11... it'll always be there. It doesn't matter if it doesn't work. People use it as part of their identity. Believing in it is part of who they are, and as Klippel said, admitting that you're wrong is a big no-no, and not just for nutters.

I haven't checked, but I'm sure Lamarckism still has its supporters...

Another important point is that if any of these "cold fusion" or "LENR" schemes worked as claimed, putting the apparatus into a pressure vessel to boil water and generate electricity would be ridiculously simple. Yet, three decades after Pons and Fleishman, for some reason nobody's managed to do it. All we have is a bunch of bad calorimetry and sooper seekrit schemes that will be producing energy real soon now.

Belz...
13th June 2011, 05:18 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Game_of_life_animated_glider.gif

I know what it is. I just usually recognise posters by their avatar. :p

Belz...
13th June 2011, 05:20 PM
Another important point is that if any of these "cold fusion" or "LENR" schemes worked as claimed, putting the apparatus into a pressure vessel to boil water and generate electricity would be ridiculously simple. Yet, three decades after Pons and Fleishman, for some reason nobody's managed to do it. All we have is a bunch of bad calorimetry and sooper seekrit schemes that will be producing energy real soon now.

I honestly don't understand the thinking process that brings them to this conclusion. I mean, once it's been shown not to work, shouldn't they just say "well, let's just assume it doesn't work until such a time at which more evidence is presented, if ever." ? Why maintain this belief at all costs. At least with this one, their eternal soul doesn't depend on it.

ben m
13th June 2011, 05:24 PM
Not sure where you got your numbers.

I'm not talking about the entire fusion research program. I'm talking about one experiment. I was quoting $6B from memory for ITER. (Wikipedia tells me that number is a factor of 2.5 out of date.)

And you seem to have missed the point of my post. Why can't cold fusion, in 2011, complete the basic physics experiments that hot fusion did in the 1930s? "We don't have hot fusion's billions" is no excuse---that was my point. The basic physics experiments shouldn't cost billions.


And since 2002, we've spent even more. So if Rossi's invention pans out, there sure is going to be a lot of egg on a lot of faces. :D

I'm not seeing it. Compare: "Oh no! I spent the years 1950-2011 trying to scale up the well-known DD and DT fusion processes. What a fool! I should have sat on my bum that whole time instead, on the off chance that some other, utterly-nonsensical-sounding technology would be emerge in Italy in 2012."

"Oh no! I spent my whole life looking for drugs to cure cancer. I should have known that in 2023, a captured alien spaceship would give us the quantum nucleic acid refumbulator technology that cures everything. I was a fool!"

"Oh no! I spent thirty years trying to turn algal biomass into clean methane fuel. It sounded like a good idea at the time, but what I really should have done was wait for the invention of thin-film organic solar cells in 2017, that solved the problem in a much better way! I sure have egg on my face now!"

TjW
13th June 2011, 07:23 PM
I'm deeply troubled, Ben. When was the last time you had changed you avatar ? I can't remember. Now I'm all confused with this one !

Well, as John Conway said, "That's Life."

BeAChooser
13th June 2011, 07:32 PM
And you seem to have missed the point of my post. Why can't cold fusion, in 2011, complete the basic physics experiments that hot fusion did in the 1930s?

:popcorn1

TjW
13th June 2011, 07:33 PM
C'mon now David, I don't want to get into it with you again, but really. If your statement were true that would mean that anyone in the world could make an argument on anything at all, and according to you it would be valid. Do you really believe that?? Of course maybe it comes down what you mean by valid.

No. The validity of an argument does not depend on the identity of the person making the argument. The mistake of arguing that it does is so old that it has a Latin name: Ad Hominem.
Many people seem to believe that this means insulting someone during an argument. It doesn't. (Which is not to say that you can't throw in an insult or two while making an ad hominem argument.)

CaveDave
13th June 2011, 07:58 PM
What's fun about those who like to talk about conspiracy theorists is that they don't get the big picture.
Here's the big money crowd with these elaborate enterprises in place. They are making billions. Do you think they want some new technology to come along and replace those elaborate enterprises? And since when did big money care about becoming saviors of humanity? I believe its you who needs the reality check. Better not rest your case just yet.

You think they WANT to pour millions a year into construction, operation, fuel & supplies, maintenance, and replacement of these enormous, unsightly, and bad-for-PR monstrosities that "conventional" production needs?
When the could buy up the rights and replace (over time) all that with cheap, small, clean, efficient plantlets and get the public relations boon to boot?

Man, what COLOR is the sky in YOUR world?:rolleyes:

Cheers,

Dave

CaveDave
13th June 2011, 08:10 PM
Not sure where you got your numbers.

http://www.economist.com/node/1234632



Never mind how many more billions the EU countries, Russia, Japan and China devoted to the problem during the same timespan.

And since 2002, we've spent even more. So if Rossi's invention pans out, there sure is going to be a lot of egg on a lot of faces. :D

That theres a pretty big IF word your slingin' around there, Pilgrim.
Best you be puttin' that away an' toddlin' home before ya HURT yerself with it!

[/TheDuke]

Dave

TjW
13th June 2011, 08:22 PM
You make it all sound so simple. Can anyone be sure there wasn't a period where, their inventions were looked upon much as Rossi's is now, and they opted to avoid the big money crowd?

Well, Edison certainly never was -- the phonograph captured people's imaginations -- though he spent a fair amount of money on publicity both for his own brand and trying to discredit George Westinghouse's commericialization of Nikola Tesla's AC power distribution scheme. The thing is, no one, not even Edison, ever said AC power distribution didn't work. It did, and this was easily shown.
Still, while Edison by that time could be said to be big money himself, and spent money to discredit AC, George Westinghouse could be said to be big money, too. The issue was decided by the technical superiority of AC for electrical distribution.

The original research done for Google was done on a National Science Foundation grant. The U.S. government is pretty big money, and they've probably made it back in taxes.
Google the company started up financed by venture capitalists. That's another name for big money.

Apple borrowed a lot from venture capitalists, and those Big Money guys made billions in capital gains at the initial public offering.

Now, of course, those companies are publicly traded, and Big Money owns a lot of the shares because they're stable, profitable companies.

CaveDave
13th June 2011, 08:26 PM
No, don't you understand? That whole "H bomb" thing was a hoax!


;) :D

Try tellin' that to the Bikini Islanders - damn near demolished their whole atoll (far bigger than theorized)...;)

Dave

Craig B
13th June 2011, 08:56 PM
Attaboy

You make it all sound so simple. Can anyone be sure there wasn't a period where, their inventions were looked upon much as Rossi's is now, and they opted to avoid the big money crowd?

Anyone who spends 5 minutes looking at the history of these inventions can be pretty sure of it. See:

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bledison.htm

August 12, 1877, is the date popularly given for Edison's completion of the model for the first phonograph. It is more likely, however, that work on the model was not finished until November or December of that year, since he did not file for the patent until December 24, 1877.

Readers of his patent applications can replicate the devices. And telephones are not equipped with self-destruct devices to protect the "sensible" info concealed in their guts. In spite of omitting this precaution Edison made money. Lots of it!

Why didn't "big money" stop him, to protect its investment in existing technology like the telegraph? And for that matter why was the telegraph not earlier suppressed by "big money" to protect its investments in the Pony Express, and tying messages to pigeons' legs? Because the telegraph WORKS.

Electric lighting works too.

There are a couple of other interesting things about the invention of the light bulb: While most of the attention was on the discovery of the right kind of filament that would work,

Attention on the right kind of things that work - that's the key, seemingly.

Edison actually had to invent a total of seven system elements that were critical to the practical application of electric lights as an alternative to the gas lights that were prevalent in that day.

The gas interests were quite unable to suppress the new light. They competed with it by introducing improved gas mantles, cooking hobs, water heaters etc., to retain their customers.

The seven systems were:

the parallel circuit, a durable light bulb, an improved dynamo, the underground conductor network, the devices for maintaining constant voltage, safety fuses and insulating materials, and light sockets with on-off switches.

Before Edison could make his millions, every one of these elements had to be invented and then, through careful trial and error, developed into practical, reproducible components.

Quite so!

The success of his electric light brought Thomas Edison to new heights of fame and wealth, as electricity spread around the world. ( ... )The tremendous amount of capital needed to develop the incandescent lighting industry had necessitated the involvement of investment bankers such as J.P. Morgan.

So J.P.M. - and if there was ever "big money" he was it! - didn't stifle the electric light at birth - he embraced it (because it works), and he and its inventor made millions.

And as to with the cinematograph .... But enough. We see the picture. Why is the history of cold fusion so different? Because it doesn't work; it can't be reproduced, it's not reliable.

Not because it's being suppressed by malevolent all powerful big money manipulators.

Andrew Wiggin
14th June 2011, 01:51 AM
So how much time has to pass without an actual working product before the proponents of this particular fraud give up? Six months? (We've had six months) A year? 2 years? How long before we can revisit this thread and say 'yep, still nothing. Must have been a scam'? It reminds me of a car that's sitting for sale nearby; my wife has talked with the seller a couple of times. It looks like a nice car, the price is reasonable, but every time she talks with him he has a reason why no one can test drive it. It's been there a year. Conclusion; it's not actually for sale. Why doesn't matter. If it was for sale, some selling would be going on. Not preordering, not drumming up investors, selling, as in 'here's my money' and 'here's your e-cat'.

summand
14th June 2011, 02:05 AM
So how much time has to pass without an actual working product before the proponents of this particular fraud give up?

How about "never"? Look at Blacklight Power (founded 1991): They claimed in 1997 that they were "just 6 months away" from a working product. Did they deliver? Of course not. In 2009 their venture funding hat increased to 60(!) million.

Or Steorn: An amateur compared to BLP, but 5 years of promises is no slouch either...

Rossi has pushed the "release date" already and he will keep pushing it into the future. And some people will never lose faith....

Aepervius
14th June 2011, 02:13 AM
I'm deeply troubled, Ben. When was the last time you had changed you avatar ? I can't remember. Now I'm all confused with this one !

Life is a game :D

ETA: I see you know about the game of life. Sorry. I am also scanning the thread on the left not by name but by avatar :).

Belz...
14th June 2011, 02:23 AM
How about "never"? Look at Blacklight Power (founded 1991): They claimed in 1997 that they were "just 6 months away" from a working product. Did they deliver? Of course not. In 2009 their venture funding hat increased to 60(!) million.

Or Steorn: An amateur compared to BLP, but 5 years of promises is no slouch either...

Rossi has pushed the "release date" already and he will keep pushing it into the future. And some people will never lose faith....

At least hot fusion is honest enough to admit they're decades away from commercial use.

Andrew Wiggin
14th June 2011, 02:39 AM
How about "never"? Look at Blacklight Power (founded 1991): They claimed in 1997 that they were "just 6 months away" from a working product. Did they deliver? Of course not. In 2009 their venture funding hat increased to 60(!) million.

Or Steorn: An amateur compared to BLP, but 5 years of promises is no slouch either...

Rossi has pushed the "release date" already and he will keep pushing it into the future. And some people will never lose faith....

What a bunch of suckers. I just wish I was less ethical. When surrounded by sheep, it's hard for me not to conceive of acting like a wolf, but for some reason I never do. This particular line of fraud would be so easy to get into.

Aepervius
14th June 2011, 04:28 AM
The point cuddle was making (i think) is that you cannot avoid FULLY disclosing everything in a patent, failure to do so make it invalid/useless to protect your invention.

Not true. There are ways around making a full disclosure yet still making the patent valid.

Yous till have not answered to my request of you showing example of valid patent where the central point is kept a secret.

Aepervius
14th June 2011, 04:31 AM
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3194216.ece

‘The contract can be defined by two basic steps. The first is an experimental test. If the test goes well, there will be an initial down payment. Thereafter, the principal payment of a greater economic impact will be done when the plant of one megawatt is delivered, ‘Pascucci said.

Underlined my emphasis. It looks like money will be changing hands... After a "test".

Aam
14th June 2011, 05:31 AM
Something else for you to consider:

http//blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/14/solving-the-mystery-of-the-energy-catalzyer/

You have to add the colon yourselves, which shouldn't be a problem.

Posted on June 14, 2011 by Steven B. Krivit

Several months ago Andrea Rossi, inventor of the Energy Catalzyer (E-Cat) agreed to grant me an interview and to show me his invention. He agreed to show the E-Cat to me in operation, to take video footage of it and interview him on camera.

I am now in Milan and will be in Bologna in a few hours...

summand
14th June 2011, 06:16 AM
Fixed the link for you:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/14/solving-the-mystery-of-the-energy-catalzyer/

Dancing David
14th June 2011, 06:17 AM
Something else for you to consider:

http//blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/14/solving-the-mystery-of-the-energy-catalzyer/

You have to add the colon yourselves, which shouldn't be a problem.

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/14/solving-the-mystery-of-the-energy-catalzyer/

Just words no data in upcoming interviews.

BeAChooser
14th June 2011, 11:39 AM
At least hot fusion is honest enough to admit they're decades away from commercial use.

LOL! Let's stroll back a few years ...

How about this from a collection of articles published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists back in 1971 (http://books.google.com/books?id=jAsAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=fusion+power+predictions&source=bl&ots=X5RGBwkbZh&sig=L3--YTv_wLeKPdh1xMEV2Z8z7W4&hl=en&ei=Maj3TanqFuLQiALI5ND9DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=fusion&f=false ):


On Misunderstanding the Atom

Glenn T Seaborg [retiring Chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission]

I want to speak quite bluntly and frankly about what is on the minds of many people today concerning nuclear energy and its future ... snip ...

... snip ...

[b]By the year 2000 we will also have seen the successful control of thermonuclear fusion, and perhaps the first full-scale fusion demonstration plant in operation.


:D

Belz...
14th June 2011, 11:52 AM
You can't fault them for being wrong about something 30 years ahead.

At least they didn't say "by next October"...

BenBurch
14th June 2011, 12:20 PM
The first controlled fusion was in the mid-1960s;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor

Captain_Swoop
14th June 2011, 01:36 PM
Well the Canal owners managed to squash that Railway thing, erm ... well OK.

ElMondoHummus
14th June 2011, 01:52 PM
...will be in Bologna in a few hours...
Is that a meta joke on this topic?

:duck:

nathan
14th June 2011, 01:54 PM
Well the Canal owners managed to squash that Railway thing, erm ... well OK.

'bout as well as the horse buggy manufacturers prevented the automobile.

unclep2k
14th June 2011, 04:12 PM
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/brian-ahern-getting-8-watts-in-low.html

Dancing David
14th June 2011, 04:17 PM
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/brian-ahern-getting-8-watts-in-low.html

Doesn't say much, how did he measure that?

unclep2k
14th June 2011, 04:25 PM
Doesn't say much, how did he measure that?

Yes I hope more info comes out soon.

BenBurch
14th June 2011, 07:47 PM
Yes I hope more info comes out soon.

It will. When you make stuff up it is easy to obtain data.

Craig B
15th June 2011, 12:54 AM
Please have a look at this fascinating "I'm not a scammer" free energy claim.

http://www.freelectricity.com/NotAScam.html

It can't be a scam. He's only charging 1.6 million people $7.50 to sign up for "free", and

Whatever the person has to do to get signed up is their total risk! So they spend $7.50 S&H to sign up. What does such a person have to gain? The possibility of all the energy they could use to heat, cool and electrify their home for the rest of their life! What do they have to lose? The cost of a meal!

Where have I seen that argument before?

This Dennis Lee could each Rossi a thing or two!

Except how to stay out of the calaboose. They've both been locked up by the ungrateful authorities at one time or another.

Crawdaddy
15th June 2011, 07:36 AM
Nice link uncle2pk.

Now we are up to 8 professors and one MIT PhD that decided, after decades of honest scientific work, to throw it all away and become con artists overnight.

What a bunch of scammers!

Aepervius
15th June 2011, 07:56 AM
Nice link uncle2pk.

Now we are up to 8 professors and one MIT PhD that decided, after decades of honest scientific work, to throw it all away and become con artists overnight.

What a bunch of scammers!

Where did i see that argument before ? Oh yes in the steorn thread.

unclep2k
15th June 2011, 08:16 AM
I guess the Brian Ahren link is a bit different. He didn't just observe and test, he replicated. I agree this initial release isn't very scientific. Brian is an experienced scientist, published many times and with several patents, and so I'm hoping he follows through with a good scientific paper on this.

Crawdaddy
15th June 2011, 08:24 AM
Aepervius

Where did i see that argument before ? Oh yes in the steorn thread.

Really? Every scientist that ever witnessed a steorn demonstration has been convinced enough to lay their career on the line to endorse the claim of excess energy?

Oh that's right steorn has failed to convince almost every observer they have ever demonstrated their device to.

Excellent example of rational skepticism there. Very solid, well reasoned argument against the e-cat you just presented, you should be very proud. Do you drive by looking in the rear view mirror as well?

Aepervius
15th June 2011, 08:27 AM
Aepervius

.

Really? Every scientist that ever witnessed a steorn demonstration has been convinced enough to lay their career on the line to endorse the claim of excess energy?

Oh that's right steorn has failed to convince almost every observer they have ever demonstrated their device to.

Excellent example of rational skepticism there. Very solid, well reasoned argument against the e-cat you just presented, you should be very proud. Do you drive by looking in the rear view mirror as well?

They convinced *3* engineer enough for them to blog.

That is essentially the same argument pushed.

Rationally one should always reject the argument ad populum or argument by authority and concetrate on fact on the eCAt. Good luck on that one because the 8 professor+1 PhD is not an argument on eCAt.

As for the well reasonned argunment they were already presented 230 times over this thread. And ignored all the like by your kind.

Yevgen Barsukov
15th June 2011, 08:29 AM
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/brian-ahern-getting-8-watts-in-low.html

This sounds to me like a slow reaction of H2 with metal oxides. They stated
that Zr is turning into ZrO2 during baking. Then they are filling the tube
with hydrogen and heating it to temperatures where H2 + ZrO2 --> H2O + Zr
reaction would become significant:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0169433295000321

Regards,
Yevgen

phunk
15th June 2011, 08:51 AM
Indeed. And you know what Ahern's email never mentions? Testing what's left in the reaction chamber afterward. That's another pretty basic step missing from these "tests".

ben m
15th June 2011, 09:56 AM
Indeed. And you know what Ahern's email never mentions? Testing what's left in the reaction chamber afterward. That's another pretty basic step missing from these "tests".

Indeed, it's typical of these cold fusion "experiments". You see something that (you think) mainstream physics doen't understand. But rather than trying to understand it you dismantle it to tinker. Analyzing the sample would tell you something about what happened, but cold fusionists never seem to care about that.

The "... but I'm an engineer, not a physicist, Jim" excuse is nonsense. From that perspective, if Ahern's system *actually* generates the 8 watts that he claims it does, then it's ready to commercialize right now. Green energy is worth something like $1 per watt-year. His email claims to get a watt, continuously, out of $0.2 worth of nickel. That's plenty of power density. If you really think of yourself as a practical I-want-to-save-the-world-not-win-Nobel-prizes engineer, make a kilogram of the magic powder and start boiling some water. Right now. Go go go! Stop tinkering!

If you want to study rather than tinkering ... well, there's been lots of advice on that already. But I've never seen a cold-fusion-advocate who was capable of studying their own effect carefully. It's always "I ran the experiment until my confirmation bias told me I was done. At the end of the experiment I eyeballed the temperature off of a thermometer I bought at CVS, and I wrote it down somewhere but the dog ate my notes. Then I baked out the substrate and tried again!"

For what it's worth, I see no evidence that Ahern is a scammer. From his email, he sounds a lot like the usual sincere perpetual-motion crank: not very good at instrumentation, experimental design, or data analysis; enjoys tinkering; easily confused by small experimental errors that trigger confirmation bias.

BenBurch
15th June 2011, 10:10 AM
Yes, if I had a simple device that made 8 watts for an indefinite period of time with only some H2 added occasionally, I could have a power plant running in 30-60 days from approval.

I wouldn't even boil water.

I would set up a Stirling Cycle engine and an heat exchanger.

I would buy the Stirling engine and the generator and phase sync equipment off the shelf, and the design work would be mostly the plumbing for the heat exchanger. The alternative would be a Brayton cycle turbine. Super-critical CO2 would be my first choice for a heat exchange medium, but treated water would work at least in the Stirling case.

All this is really elementary power engineering, the only significant factor involving the novel heat source is the low energy density, which drives the decision to not attempt to use a steam engine.

unclep2k
15th June 2011, 11:21 AM
Clearly Brian isn't finished with this. He has spent quite a bit of time and money. Not sure if his intent is pure science or a competing product. Time will tell. I am sure we haven't heard the last of this.

Aam
15th June 2011, 12:33 PM
http//blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/14/solving-the-mystery-of-the-energy-catalzyer/

Just words no data in upcoming interviews.

At least it looks like he might be honest:

http//newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35903tangledtale.shtml

This account documents how numerous scientific data points and values were gradually changed, added and deleted during a 10-year period by electrochemist Michael McKubre at SRI International – all without scientific explanation, most without notification.

Again, sorry about the link.

Craig B
15th June 2011, 12:56 PM
Aam

Yet again the name of Michael McKubre, of Menlo Park CA crops up. It was mentioned with approval by Attaboy.

The main thing about McKubre is that he's a martyr to truth, just like Galileo, in his own estimation. We learn this from

Radio interview with researcher Michael McKubre and author Charles G. Beaudette*November 27, 2002 on station KUER, University of Utah.
http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/KUERinterview.htm

Charles Beaudette: I get the impression that (the physicists') position is that mankind does not know how to measure heat. ( ... ) The outspoken physicists who have continually berated this field will not go into the laboratory. It is very reminiscent of Galileo's problem in 1610 when his associates at Padua would not bend over to look through his telescope to see what he was seeing. It's very similar to that in my mind.
Doug Fubbrezio: Dr. McKubre, talk about that. It must be frustrating, I suppose?
Michael McKubre: Yes, it is very frustrating.

So McKubre accepts being "similar" to Galileo; but Galileo certainly wasn't "frustrated" in 1610:

http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/galileo/section5.rhtml

(I)n June of 1610, he gained appointment as "First Mathematician of the University of Pisa, and First Mathematician and Philosopher to the Grand Duke," ( ... ) Siderius Nuncius (his printed account of his telescopic discoveries) had gained fame as the wonder of Europe, as philosophers and scientists marveled at the new vistas opened by Galileo's telescope, and kings and princes clamored to have the Italian astronomer name his ever-increasing discoveries after them. And the discoveries kept coming.

Alas, McKubre's discoveries don't keep coming.

Other martyrdoms appear in McKubre's reminiscences. One of them is very real - it killed a co-worker.

Dr. Michael McKubre Director of the Energy Research Center at SRI International, (New Energy Times August 8, 2003)

... We were able to pursue this [cold fusion] field, we were well-positioned. We had achieved a positive result in a controversial environment.*The time of decision for me came with the explosion that killed Andy Riley. So we had at that point a perfect opportunity to say "its too dangerous, its too risky." We had perfect time to bail out and say, "This is not for us."
-When did this occur?
January 2, 1992. It was a shock to us all and a terrible tragedy.
- And that was the result of a cold fusion experiment?
Right. At the time, we were struggling with critics, we were struggling with the experiments.*But we had a moral duty to continue ...

A naive reader might suppose that the explosion was somehow evidence that fusion had taken place.

But see, Sharon Weinberger,The Washington Post (2004-11-21): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54964-2004Nov16_2.html

For years the experiments took place behind bulletproof glass, the result of a 1992 accident that killed one of his colleagues. McKubre still has bits of glass embedded in his side from the cold fusion experiment that exploded that day in his lab (the blast had nothing to do with fusion; hydrogen mixed with oxygen, creating the equivalent of rocket fuel).

Sharon Weinberger sounds like what the cryofusionists call a "pathological sceptic" to me.

I suppose people who work with hydrogen (for whatever purpose) are at risk from chemical explosions. I can find no evidence that McKubre has ever achieved cold fusion, explosion or not.

Crawdaddy
15th June 2011, 01:57 PM
Yevgen,

This sounds to me like a slow reaction of H2 with metal oxides. They stated
that Zr is turning into ZrO2 during baking. Then they are filling the tube
with hydrogen and heating it to temperatures where H2 + ZrO2 --> H2O + Zr
reaction would become significant:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...69433295000321


1) The reduction of zirconium oxide in hydrogen is an endothermic reaction.

2) It has never been observed at the temperatures in the ahern experiment.

3) the paper you cited only shows a partial reduction of the oxide to ZrO1.x and then only after the extremely thin film (2.6nm) has been bombarded with ions from a hydrogen plasma (typically these ions can have energies in the keV range).

4) I delayed pointing out these obvious problems with your argument to see if any other contributors might take five minutes to actually correct your errors. However it appears that well reasoned arguments are only required on one side of this discussion.

BenBurch
15th June 2011, 02:20 PM
In any case, there is no chemical reaction because there is no reaction whatsoever.

unclep2k
15th June 2011, 02:59 PM
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=it&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2F22passi.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F06%2F quattro-gatti-e-sette-persone.html

Dancing David
15th June 2011, 04:19 PM
I guess the Brian Ahren link is a bit different. He didn't just observe and test, he replicated. I agree this initial release isn't very scientific. Brian is an experienced scientist, published many times and with several patents, and so I'm hoping he follows through with a good scientific paper on this.

But he did not replicate the heat out put that Rossi claims.

BenBurch
15th June 2011, 04:41 PM
But he did not replicate the heat out put that Rossi claims.

Because he COULD not.

All of this could be cleared up (one way or another) by simply giving me one, and I will test it in a professional and competent manner.

Emet
15th June 2011, 05:30 PM
So McKubre accepts being "similar" to Galileo; but Galileo certainly wasn't "frustrated" in 1610:


Okay. That earns him 40 points on the crackpot index (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html).

Your post has me hearing an old Sam Cooke song in my head:

Don’t know much about history
Don’t know why-it’s a mystery
Don’t know much about how science works
Or why folks think I’m a big dumb jerk

But I do know I’m a pioneer
Invest right now and I will buy the beer
What a wonderful world this can be

Now I don’t claim to know any physics
I’m not trying to learn
But maybe by faking some physics, well baby
I can have some cash that I’ll earn

unclep2k
15th June 2011, 05:55 PM
But he did not replicate the heat out put that Rossi claims.

True, but he did get an energy gain. He doesn't know what Rossi uses for a catalyst. He is doing experiments trying to raise the output.

CaveDave
15th June 2011, 06:36 PM
Deleted doublepost

CaveDave
15th June 2011, 06:52 PM
Because he COULD not.

All of this could be cleared up (one way or another) by simply giving me one, and I will test it in a professional and competent manner.

What're the odds against THAT being allowed?






You might discover their most Jealously-Guarded secret of all!

That NOTHING extraordinary at all happens.:D

Dave

Cuddles
16th June 2011, 09:07 AM
Where did i see that argument before ? Oh yes in the steorn thread.

It actually made me think of this (http://www.ae911truth.org/). Just another 1505 to go and they'll be on a par with one of the stupidest conspiracy theories ever.

Dancing David
16th June 2011, 09:13 AM
True, but he did get an energy gain. He doesn't know what Rossi uses for a catalyst. He is doing experiments trying to raise the output.

No, that is not shown at all, for all you know it could be considered a chemical reaction and not some 'megawatt power station for real cheap' claim.

Energy gain in terms of what, ordinary chemistry?

BenBurch
16th June 2011, 09:52 AM
No, that is not shown at all, for all you know it could be considered a chemical reaction and not some 'megawatt power station for real cheap' claim.

Energy gain in terms of what, ordinary chemistry?

And he doesn't appear to have done a competent job of the mensuration.

Yevgen Barsukov
16th June 2011, 11:13 AM
Yevgen,
1) The reduction of zirconium oxide in hydrogen is an endothermic reaction.

2) It has never been observed at the temperatures in the ahern experiment.

3) the paper you cited only shows a partial reduction of the oxide to ZrO1.x and then only after the extremely thin film (2.6nm) has been bombarded with ions from a hydrogen plasma (typically these ions can have energies in the keV range).



1) Regardless if reaction is endothermic or isothermic (e.g the sign of dH)
its overall energy effect depends on the conditions, basically on the sign of
dG = dH - TdS.
As long as dG is negative, reaction will take place and will release heat.
In this particular case, even though dH is positive, the very large dS due
to gaseous products will make dG negative at certain temperature. If that
would not be the case, there would be no reaction products detected in the paper I cited.

2) Experiment was run at several temperatures and in particular at temperature. You might want to re-read your sources. From the Ahern write-up:
***
After several hours the hydrated system was evacuated overnight at a
constant high temperature at 530C. The next day H2 gas was again added at
100psi and the temperature rose by 40C to 570C and came back down to 530C
after two hours. At the end of the day the dewar was again evacuated while
still at 530C overnight.
***
From the paper I cited:
***
Heating to 425°C yielded a reduced suboxide, ZrOx,
***
So in fact, they used even lower temperatures than Ahern...

3) It was showing a partial reduction exactly because they used plasma - there was low pressure H2 and short time exposure. The purpose of the paper
was not to reduce the whole ZrO2 but to investigate the reaction. But the very
fact that there is a reaction at this temperature raises the red flag to
the whole assumption of non-chemical energy release.

Speaking of reduction, I did not want to, like you say, "state the obvious", but since you insist, we should also consider reduction of NiO2 and CuO that have to be present after prolonged heating of the mix in the oxigen atmosphere. Will you argue about them too? These reaction will not only take place at high
temperature, but are even exothermic by themselves having negative dH:

***
It is also worthy to note that there were no precious metals involved the alloy was Zr66%-Ni21%-Cu13%.
....

The foils were baked in ordinary air at 445C for 28 hours.
The brittle, oxidized foils were placed in a tumble mill for 24 hours.
*****
So, why again we are surprised that this mix of oxides will produce heat when
reduced by hydrogen? H2 / NiO2 is effectively the energy storing couple used
in NiMH batteries...

Regards,
Yevgen

Crawdaddy
16th June 2011, 04:37 PM
Yevgen Barsukov

1) Regardless if reaction is endothermic or isothermic (e.g the sign of dH)
its overall energy effect depends on the conditions, basically on the sign of
dG = dH - TdS.
As long as dG is negative, reaction will take place and will release heat.
In this particular case, even though dH is positive, the very large dS due
to gaseous products will make dG negative at certain temperature. If that
would not be the case, there would be no reaction products detected in the paper I cited.

This is absolutely wrong. Endothermic reactions store energy in the form of potential energy. The reduction of ZrO2 lowers the temperature of the reaction vessel. The change in entropy in the reaction is low. There is no change in the number of gas phase molecules.

2) Experiment was run at several temperatures and in particular at temperature. You might want to re-read your sources. From the Ahern write-up:
***
After several hours the hydrated system was evacuated overnight at a
constant high temperature at 530C. The next day H2 gas was again added at
100psi and the temperature rose by 40C to 570C and came back down to 530C
after two hours. At the end of the day the dewar was again evacuated while
still at 530C overnight.
***
From the paper I cited:
***
Heating to 425°C yielded a reduced suboxide, ZrOx,
***
So in fact, they used even lower temperatures than Ahern...

You have failed to understand your own source. The observed reduction of ZrO2 (on the order of micrograms/mol under normal circumstances) was enhanced in this paper by a pre-bombardment with high energy hydrogen ions from a plasma. Typically plasma ions have energies in the 100eV range. In case you are unaware, an atom with 1eV has a temperature of around 11000 kelvin. You cannot compare the reduction observed in this experiment with the ahern measurements because of the exposure of the thin film to extremely highly energetic hydrogen ions. Of course this is a moot point because the reaction has a positive enthalpy in any case!

3) It was showing a partial reduction exactly because they used plasma - there was low pressure H2 and short time exposure. The purpose of the paper
was not to reduce the whole ZrO2 but to investigate the reaction. But the very
fact that there is a reaction at this temperature raises the red flag to
the whole assumption of non-chemical energy release.

The generation of oxygen vacancies in metal oxide under plasma treatment with a post plasma treatment annealing step is similar to the ahern experiment!? Absolutely false.

Aam
16th June 2011, 11:18 PM
http//blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/16/preliminary-report-of-interviews-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/

Still can't post links, sorry. Quote from the above:

Bologna, Italia — Here is a quick status report of my visit to Andrea Rossi’s showroom on Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday to look at his invention which he calls the Energy Catalyzer.

In addition to Rossi, I also came to speak with Sergio Focardi, professor emeritus from the University of Bologna, and Giuseppe Levi, a current member of the University of Bologna department of physics. All three have been actively involved in the experiments and promotion of the E-Cat.

Kid Eager
17th June 2011, 12:13 AM
http//blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/16/preliminary-report-of-interviews-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/

Still can't post links, sorry. Quote from the above:

I just read the article at the link and it's very carefully written to say, in essence, that no evidence was presented that supports any of the claims. Well worth a read to get a flavour of what appears to be going (or not going) on.

Craig B
17th June 2011, 01:56 AM
Aam

I just read the article at the link and it's very carefully written to say, in essence, that no evidence was presented that supports any of the claims. Well worth a read to get a flavour of what appears to be going (or not going) on.

Krivit's thinking is certainly moving in the right direction! See #1448 p 37, where I report his earlier credulity regarding Rossi.

Quote:
If confirmed, the Rossi-Focardi development would be a significant practical development for the LENR field. Despite my earlier misgivings about Rossi’s Web site promotion, I am upgrading my skepticism about the Rossi-Focardi device to cautious optimism. ( ... )
My confidence in the Rossi-Focardi work comes not only from Celani’s report but also, in large part, from my lab visits with Piantelli in 2007 and 2009. ( ... ) As far as Rossi’s story of a self-sustaining reactor, I am inclined to believe it. It is very similar to a story that Piantelli told me[/quote]about a self sustaining device allegedly created by Pianatelli, which unfortunately "exploded"And I have seen the melted metal in Piantelli’s lab.

Where Rossi went wrong with Krivit may be not only that he didn't show his visitor any melted metal (which Krivit appears usually to accept in lieu of data) but - oh, horror! - he took the coffee machine away.

Dancing David
17th June 2011, 05:24 AM
http//blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/16/preliminary-report-of-interviews-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/

Still can't post links, sorry. Quote from the above:

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/16/preliminary-report-of-interviews-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/


Thus far, the scientific details provided by the E-Cat trio have been highly deficient and have not enabled the public to make an objective evaluation. The Essen-Kullander report, while written with confident-sounding language, has significant weakness in its presentation of data and calculations and is highly constrained by the methodology dictated and instrumentation provided by the E-Cat trio.

I discussed the crucial difference in steam enthalpy calculations by mass versus by volume with Levi on Wednesday afternoon. Based on his initial response, I could not be sure if he had previously understood the potential impact.

By the end of our conversation, after I showed him my calculations which displayed one to two orders of magnitude less enthalpy if the measurements had been made volumetrically, he assured me that the measurements had been measured by mass



Levi’s Jan. 21 report stated that Galantini used a device to check that the steam was “completely dry,” however, Levi did not say if, in fact, that Galantini measured completely dry steam. Levi also did not provide clear details about Galantini’s method.

The Essen/Kullander April 3 report of the March 29 E-Cat experiment does provide some details about how the steam was measured for its liquid content. I am in the process of evaluating this information to assess if it reflects a mass or volumetric basis for the measurements. If any readers believe that the given information provides clarity on the method used during the Essen/Kullander experiment, please send me an e-mail right away.

The entire uncertainty about vaporization enthalpy would be moot if the experiments were run with a higher flow rate to keep the output temperature below boiling. Levi apparently did this on Feb. 10-11 and he provided information about his final results to reporter Mats Lewan of Ny Teknik.

Levi has not however, provided Lewan, or anybody for that matter, any information about his data. On Wednesday, I asked Levi for this data, for the second time. This time, he agreed. Levi promised to send me either raw or formatted data from the Feb. 10-11 experiment by next Wednesday.

unclep2k
17th June 2011, 07:28 AM
I'm hoping Krivit is just playing hard ass to make certain the right questions get answered.

Craig B
17th June 2011, 09:19 AM
Unclep2k

Why does he need to play hard ass to get the right questions answered? Faced with a soft ass enquirer, would Rossi give the right answers to the wrong questions or the wrong answers to the right questions? If so, why?

Aam
17th June 2011, 10:01 AM
Dr. Levi's response to Krivit's post:

Dear Mr. Krivit

Carefully I have read your preliminary report on your travel to Bologna .
Your report Clearly Demonstrates That You have not understood anything of what you have and what we have seen you Explained.
First of all the story about the steam.
As the signature in my email says I got a PhD in Physics Years Ago.This Means That I have totally Understood the difference Between residual water in steam as fraction of the mass or volume.
As I have unsuccessfully tried to explain you:
1) The plots are showing you where you can find well known and Them in Any manual of physical chemistry.
When You apply the measure the quantity of steam present as% of VOLUME.


2) As I have told you many times, Dr. Galantini, the expert chemist That Was in charge, have done to measure as percent of MASS.


As Professor Zanchini has told you the Same Day We Met, one of the informations you have crutial omitted from your preliminary report, fraction of water in the steam, Measured by MASS as we have done, would reduce the amount of energy in a Measured linear way.


So our analysis and our calculation is correct.


Because you:
Part of You Had omitted information, insulted me (and my University) Trying to say that I'm not prepared in my field, tried (just tried) to scare me and put me under psychological pressure in order to know to Obtain undisclosed date,
I Will not Send You Any Other information.


Regards,
Dr. G. Levi

http//22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/quattro-gatti-e-sette-persone-3.html

Still can't post links, sorry.

Dancing David
17th June 2011, 10:12 AM
Dr. Levi's response to Krivit's post:



http//22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/quattro-gatti-e-sette-persone-3.html

Still can't post links, sorry.

http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/quattro-gatti-e-sette-persone-3.html

Translated:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/quattro-gatti-e-sette-persone-3.html&ei=IIv7TbLZK8mWtweP0ty6Dg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBwQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/quattro-gatti-e-sette-persone-3.html%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1003%26bih%3D567%26prmd%3 Divns

BenBurch
17th June 2011, 10:13 AM
In other words; "You are asking questions that would expose the hoax if I answered them, so I will pretend to be upset with you so I can ignore you in the future."

Yevgen Barsukov
17th June 2011, 10:57 AM
Yevgen Barsukov



This is absolutely wrong. Endothermic reactions store energy in the form of potential energy. The reduction of ZrO2 lowers the temperature of the reaction vessel. The change in entropy in the reaction is low. There is no change in the number of gas phase molecules.



Good point about the number of molecules. Also, by looking closer at the papers on ZrO2 + H2 I also found that H2O is not even formed in this reaction, instead H+ is getting trapped. This is indeed
going to be endothermic. Scrap that argument - the ZrO2 will stay
unchanged in this environment.

Now, lets come back to the other portion of my message that you did not
comment on, regarding Cu and Ni oxides which reaction with H2 is clearly going be be exothermic.
From the article:
***
It is also worthy to note that there were no precious metals involved the alloy was Zr66%-Ni21%-Cu13%.
....

The foils were baked in ordinary air at 445C for 28 hours.
The brittle, oxidized foils were placed in a tumble mill for 24 hours.
*****
So, why again we are surprised that this mix of oxides will produce heat when
reduced by hydrogen? H2 / NiO2 is effectively the energy storing couple used
in NiMH batteries...
Do you see any problem with this logic?

Regards,
Yevgen

Yevgen Barsukov
17th June 2011, 11:42 AM
Good point about the number of
***
It is also worthy to note that there were no precious metals involved the alloy was Zr66%-Ni21%-Cu13%.
....

The foils were baked in ordinary air at 445C for 28 hours.
The brittle, oxidized foils were placed in a tumble mill for 24 hours.
*****


Here are a very visual example of CuO formation in air and reduction with H2,
to avoid any complex discussions:
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCESoft/CCA/CCA3/MAIN/REDOXCU/PAGE1.HTM

CuO+H2-->Cu + H2O is going to be exothermic, because:
H2(g) + 1/2 O2(g) -> H2O(g) dHof = -286 kJ/mol
Cu(s) + 1/2 O2(g) -> CuO(s) dHof = -157 kJ/mol

e.g for CuO + H2 the dH = -286-(-157)= -129 kJ/mol

Regards,
Yevgen

marplots
17th June 2011, 11:55 AM
In other words; "You are asking questions that would expose the hoax if I answered them, so I will pretend to be upset with you so I can ignore you in the future."

Does that mean the blog writer isn't going to get the data he was promised for "Wednesday"?

Science is such a frustrating enterprise. All the collisions of egos and emotion... how is progress ever made at all?

Dancing David
17th June 2011, 12:05 PM
;)

YWyCCJ6B2WE
The Great Oz has spoken. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain....the...Great...er...Oz has spoken.


Think yourselves lucky I will give you audience in November instead of twenty years from now.

Crawdaddy
17th June 2011, 12:47 PM
Yevgen

Now, lets come back to the other portion of my message that you did not
comment on, regarding Cu and Ni oxides which reaction with H2 is clearly going be be exothermic.
From the article:
***
It is also worthy to note that there were no precious metals involved the alloy was Zr66%-Ni21%-Cu13%.
....

The foils were baked in ordinary air at 445C for 28 hours.
The brittle, oxidized foils were placed in a tumble mill for 24 hours.
*****
So, why again we are surprised that this mix of oxides will produce heat when
reduced by hydrogen? H2 / NiO2 is effectively the energy storing couple used
in NiMH batteries...
Do you see any problem with this logic?

It is very difficult from the information provided to determine the extent of oxidation of the metal foils in the initial steps of the experiment.

If you continue reading the experimental procedure you will notice that the metals oxides are heated under high pressure hydrogen repeatedly and stored under vacuum in between cycles.

Because the extent of metal reduction in the first cycles' initial heating phase of "several hours" when the temperature rose to an "arbitrary" level it is difficult to determine the extent of reduction during the first cycle of the experiment.

Without knowing the initial extent of oxydation or the extent of the reduction during the steps preceding the observation of "indefinite" excess heating of 5W (or 8 watts in the case of the second experiment) it is very complicated, without more knowledge, to make an informed statement about the chemical contribution to the observed heating effect.

It would be possible to roughly calculate the extent of oxydation and reduction if you knew the kinetic details of the various reactions of copper nickel and zirconium. I don't have the time to do these calculations myself but I invite you to do them if you can find the relevant kinetics data (it would make a first year chemistry exam question from hell).

If we assume that Dr. Ahern is of average intelligence and competency then he will have accounted for many of these questions before announcing his "replication".

Regardless of the results of a rough calculation of the extent of chemical contribution to the observed heating effect (indefinite 5W is too vague to quantify effectively... 8 watts for 4 hours is easy to quanitfy but the details of the experimental procedure are unpublished), an explanation for the delayed onset of the heating effect (it wasn't observed until after repeated hydrogen reduction/purge cycles), and the slow and constant reaction rate observed. Both these observations are unusual from a chemistry point view and an chemical explanation of the effect would have to account for these observations.

A satisfactory explanation of a mechanism for these lag and reaction rate observations based on literature reports of metal oxide reduction (very very strange observations) would be enough to get me to take the time to investigate the possible chemical origin of the effect more thoroughly.

Thank you for taking the time to read this long post and thank you for displaying a readiness to change your opinion with regard to ZrO2 reduction. If you applied the same level of concentration to results presented in the body of cold fusion literature that you have displayed in formulating your present argument on the chemical/non-chemical origin of the ahern result, you might find yourself surprised by the conclusions you reach (I know I was).

Craig B
17th June 2011, 01:02 PM
Dancing David

The Great Oz has spoken. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain .... the ... Great ... er ... Oz has spoken.

Here's Dorothy's dog Toto, the Wizard's "debunker". He looks as if he's playing hard ass. Maybe somebody could send him to Bologna to get a few answers from Dr Levi.

http://fixnation.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/toto.jpg

BenBurch
17th June 2011, 02:02 PM
Dancing David



Here's Dorothy's dog Toto, the Wizard's "debunker". He looks as if he's playing hard ass. Maybe somebody could send him to Bologna to get a few answers from Dr Levi.

http://fixnation.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/toto.jpg


I have no doubt that the court system will eventually provide us with the correct answers.

Belz...
17th June 2011, 02:36 PM
Dr. Levi's response to Krivit's post:

As the signature in my email says I got a PhD in Physics Years Ago.This Means That I have totally Understood the difference Between residual water in steam as fraction of the mass or volume.

But he hasn't totally understood how to use capital letters.

unclep2k
17th June 2011, 02:38 PM
Dear, Mr. Krivit
I have carefully read <http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/16/preliminary-report-of-interviews-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/>your preliminary report on your travel in Bologna. Your report clearly demonstrates that you have not understood anything of what you have seen and what we have explained you. First of all the story about the steam.
As the signature in my email says I got a PhD in Physics years ago. This means that I have totally understood the difference between residual water in steam as fraction of mass or volume. As I have unsuccessfully tried to explain you :
1) The plots you were showing are well known and you can find them in any manual of physical chemistry. They apply when you measure the quantity of steam present as % of VOLUME.

2) As I have told you many times, Dr. Galantini, the expert chemist that was in charge, has done a measure as percent of MASS.
As Professor Zanchini has told you the same day we met, one of the crucial informations you have omitted from your preliminary report, a fraction of water in the steam, measured by MASS as we have done, would reduce the amount of measured energy in a linear way.
So our calculation and our analysis is correct.

Because you:
Omitted part of information you had, insulted me (and my University) trying to say that I'm not prepared in my field, tried (just tried) to scare me and put me under psychological pressure in order to obtain so far undisclosed data, I will not send you any other information.

Regards,
Dr. G.Levi

ben m
17th June 2011, 02:52 PM
If we assume that Dr. Ahern is of average intelligence and competency then he will have accounted for many of these questions before announcing his "replication".

It's the new scientific method!

a) I tell you my result and my interpretation of it.
b) You assume I'm right and didn't make a mistake.
c) You guess what the experiment must have been.

Foolproof! That's how I discovered that the Sun is a ball of iron.

Crawdaddy
17th June 2011, 03:50 PM
Ben M

It's the new scientific method!

a) I tell you my result and my interpretation of it.
b) You assume I'm right and didn't make a mistake.
c) You guess what the experiment must have been.

Foolproof! That's how I discovered that the Sun is a ball of iron.Would you care to explain how the reaction could be chemical?

Here's your starting point: 10g of a copper nickel zirconium alloy, puts out 2.8MJ of energy.

Keep it civil please.

Captain_Swoop
17th June 2011, 04:03 PM
Foolproof! That's how I discovered that the Sun is a ball of iron.

Shush man. or 'they' will hear you the 'Solid Sunners' and then we are all doomed.

ben m
17th June 2011, 05:05 PM
Ben M

Would you care to explain how the reaction could be chemical?

Here's your starting point: 10g of a copper nickel zirconium alloy, puts out 2.8MJ of energy.


I don't think it put out 2.8MJ of energy to begin with, remember? Show me an experiment with competent, systematic-error-controlled calorimetry first, and I'll worry about whether that data requires a non-chemical explanation.

marplots
17th June 2011, 05:34 PM
Ben M
Would you care to explain how the reaction could be chemical?

Here's your starting point: 10g of a copper nickel zirconium alloy, puts out 2.8MJ of energy.

I've only had a smidgen of chemistry, but don't these types of problems usually have the other reactants and the reaction conditions in the givens?

I have yet to see the ins and outs for whatever is supposed to be happening in the magic box. I honestly hope it turns out to do what I have heard claimed. Not for any particular save-the-earth reason, but just because it would be cool.

I just can't jump on the bandwagon based solely on my hope that it is all true. At this point, it might as well be that zirconium alloys are the preferred food of magical pixies that generate energy when they eat. I am more used to the type of science where things are explained instead of concealed.

CaveDave
17th June 2011, 05:55 PM
Does that mean the blog writer isn't going to get the data he was promised for "Wednesday"?

Science is such a frustrating enterprise. All the collisions of egos and emotion... how is progress ever made at all?
Good question...

D

Craig B
18th June 2011, 05:22 PM
Here's Dorothy's dog Toto, the Wizard's "debunker". He looks as if he's playing hard ass. Maybe somebody could send him to Bologna to get a few answers from Dr Levi.

BenBurch: I have no doubt that the court system will eventually provide us with the correct answers.

Well I hope the court system's ass is as hard as Toto's (although Italian courts already have some experience in locking Rossi up), in the light of Dr Levi's recent fulminations against poor Krivit, who now seems to be cured of his earlier naive credulity re Rossi and his gang.

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/16/preliminary-report-of-interviews-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/#comment-1169

is worth a read. Here's Rossi defending Levi:

Nevertheless, [Krivit] has understood nothing, or wanted not to understand, for reasons he better knows. Our tests have been performed by Physics Professors, who know how to make measures , and I am measuring the performance every day on 300 reactors.

What a busy man he is!

In any case we will start our 1 MW plant in october and we will see how it works. Of course I assure his considerations are invalid, but I want to say more: our products on the market will confirm this. Probably this journalist has been sent by someone that wants to dwarf our work. He also tried to blackmail prof. Levi, and Levi already has given to his attorney due information.

And here's Krivit's understandably exasperated response:

I find it very interesting that my news report, which lacks a lustrous glow and endorsement for Rossi, which presents a possible critical fault, should cause Rossi to become unglued and hostile.

"Unglued" I like.

Another commentator asks the most pertinent question. Time and the courts may provide an answer.

John Davis, June 17, 2011 at 22:36. I suspect a better word ( ... ) may be fraud rather than fake. I wonder how many credulous investors have been suckered in so far?

Jimmy42
18th June 2011, 11:08 PM
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/.../#comment-1169 is worth a read. Here's Rossi defending Levi:
...and I am measuring the performance every day on 300 reactors. 300 ultra-valuable reactors laying around for the taking and nobody has made off with one and reversed engineered it?

Craig B
19th June 2011, 12:29 AM
Rossi now seems totally unglued, judging by this bizarre diatribe in his journal:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=21#comment-46697

Andrea Rossi June 17th, 2011 at 4:54 AM
Dear Roger Barker: Please read the answer I gave to Craig:
AGAIN : WE MADE THE MEASUREMENT OF THE WATER IN WEIGHT !!!!!!
AND WE EXPLAINED THIS TO KRIVIT VERY WELL!!!!!
AND HE GOT CONFIRMATION OF THIS FROM AN INDIPENDENT PROFESSOR HE CONTACTED !!!!!
NOBODY MAKES THIS KIND OF MEASUREMENT IN VOLUME, BECAUSE IT IS A NONSENSE !!!!!
KRIVIT SAID ” I HAVE UNDERSTOOD” WHEN I TOLD THIS DURING THE INTERVIEW.
I HAVE MANY WITNESSES OF WHAT ABOVE ENCLOSED THE PROF. HE CONTACTED TO GET INDIPENDENT COUNSEL !!!!!
BUT HE REPORTED THAT WE DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM: WE. PHYSICS PROFESSORS OF CERN, UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA, UNIVERSITY OF UPPSALA, UNIVARSITY OF STOCKOLM, WHO MADE THE TESTS!!!!! AND HE COMES HERE TO TESCH TO US PHYSICS!!!!!!
HE CAME TO US SMILING, VERY FRIENDLY, ACCEPTED TO BE INVITED TO GET LUNCH, ACCEPTED TAXI REMBOURSEMENT, MADE FAIR QUESTIONS, GOT PRECISE ANSWERS, AND NOW HE WRITES TOTALLY FALSE THINGS:
THIS IS A SNAKE, NOT A JOURNALIST, AND I WOULD LIKE VERY MUCH TO KNOW WHO SENT HIM (I HAVE A PRETTY IDEA, THOUGH, SINCE HE UNADVERTEDLY GAVE US A CLUE). Warm Regards, A.R.

Emet

Re your #1600, page 40: How many points on the crackpot index http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html does that outburst earn Rossi? I've lost count!

Dancing David
19th June 2011, 06:27 AM
If Rossi had used standard calorimetery, these tantrums would be un-needed.

BTW did they not use relative humidity rather than dryness ?

Aepervius
19th June 2011, 06:34 AM
Ben M

Would you care to explain how the reaction could be chemical?

Here's your starting point: 10g of a copper nickel zirconium alloy, puts out 2.8MJ of energy.

Keep it civil please.

Here is your problem : you are assuming the input is correctely calculated, the output is correctely calculated, there is really *only* 10g of reactant, and tehre is no cheating going on , like heating element placed for that purpose in the chamber etc...etc...etc...

None of which anybody could have properly checked up to now.

User27182
19th June 2011, 11:45 AM
Observing Rossi's blog, I am still in confusion: how can he do any testing, or any design, while spending so much time on handling his blog? If you look at the blog, something happens on it on every day of the week, and the time is consistent with Rossi's travel between time zones US/Europe.

Craig B
19th June 2011, 01:45 PM
User27182

How does Rossi get any time to do anything? Observing Rossi's blog, I am still in confusion: how can he do any testing, or any design, while spending so much time on handling his blog? To which we may add his exertions in "measuring the performance every day on 300 reactors". He's a veritable powerhouse.

But while you think up pettifogging questions, Rossi still has unquestioning defenders in the pages of his journal: yes, this has been published in the "Journal of Nuclear Physics"!

Dear Prof. Andrea Rossi
thank you very much for you ideas. In my opinion, E-Cat is a device that concentrates what Life does everywhere and everytime inside their evo-devo creatures. At this moment, E-Cat belongs to non-conventional physics, so it is suffering from the same troubles of non-conventional medicines. Don’t be worry, think Galileo and Sommelweis. Have you ever thought to ask the collaboration and protection of Elisabeth II, who’s the Queen of Meridian Zero of all google mapped people? I am sincerely, Stefano Marcelli

(No, he probably hasn't ever thought of that, Stefano, and with good reason.)

Emet, can you help me with a crackpot index http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html query?

40 crackpot index points to Marcelli for Galileo, no problem. For "Sommelweis", should he get a Galileo-style 40 points for the martyrdom, or the mere 5 points he'd earn for the spelling, as in "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann"?

For the suggestion that Rossi should "ask the collaboration and protection of Elisabeth II, who’s the Queen of Meridian Zero of all google mapped people" (first time I've heard that title, by the way, but I'm not much of a royalist) I think poor Marcelli has fallen off the far end of the crackpot index scale, and he should at once start a program of long-term institutional care. Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Meridian Zero of All Google-Mapped People, Queen. Sounds good to me!

BenBurch
19th June 2011, 06:36 PM
...

Emet

Re your #1600, page 40: How many points on the crackpot index http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html does that outburst earn Rossi? I've lost count!

This removes any thought that he is sincere and mistaken.

unclep2k
20th June 2011, 08:03 PM
I really want Rossi to be the real deal, but this just doesn't look like enough steam for the power they are talking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E

Craig B
20th June 2011, 10:05 PM
No, there's a whiff of visible vapour, but to me it doesn't look as if it's mixed with much invisible steam. I'm no expert, however.

And why the white walls? Nothing can be seen until Krivit offers his t-shirt as background to display the steam.

Craig B
21st June 2011, 02:38 AM
Are we reaching a dénouement? Defkalion is to hold a press conference Thursday 23rd June, 2011 @ 14:30 Municipality of Palaio Faliro (it's a southern suburb of Athens):
http://energycatalyzer.blogspot.com/2011/06/defkalion-green-technologies-will-hold.html

According to the advance publicity:

Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi have discovered and patented a technology that will change the world’s energy field. This technology will be made commercially available by Defkalion Green Technologies s.a., a Greek company. ... [which] has secured exclusive distribution rights for the entire world, except for the USA and military applications. ... Suffice to say, that Greece possesses 83% of Europe’s Nickel deposits, a key strategic consideration. ...

A Greek nickel speculative bubble is one of my pet theories about all this; but we'll know everything in two days because we are promised undisclosed to-date information relating the technology’s commercial and industrial applications, the company’s strategic placements, as well as commercial issues that are of interest not only to Defkalion’s future customers, but also to the political society of our country.

Ooh, it's all too exciting!

dsandber
21st June 2011, 07:37 AM
Am I correct that the entire wet-steam vs. dry-steam controversy could be put to rest by simply sticking the end of the output tube into a cup of water and measuring the temperature change over a few minutes?

Dancing David
21st June 2011, 08:31 AM
Am I correct that the entire wet-steam vs. dry-steam controversy could be put to rest by simply sticking the end of the output tube into a cup of water and measuring the temperature change over a few minutes?

better would be to just put the unit in a tub of water and measure the heat output.

Yevgen Barsukov
21st June 2011, 11:53 AM
I really want Rossi to be the real deal, but this just doesn't look like enough steam for the power they are talking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E

You are quite right. Rossi says that they are evaporating 7 kg / hr.
This makes it 1.9 gm per second.

Volume of water vapor at room temperature can be calculated
as 0.804 g/liter, e.g. the pipe should exhaust 1.9 / 0.804 = 2.36 liter / sec
of 100C vapor. This is a tremendous flow through what looks like maximum
5 mm radius pipe!
Generously assuming it is actually r= 5mm, we get exhaust area of 5 mm^2*pi = 79*10^-6 m^2, which gives us ( 2.36 *liter/sec / 79*10^-6m^2 ) the exhaust velocity of 29.87 m/sec.

According to the Beaufort scale here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaufort_scale
..this is a violent storm-level wind!

Not only would it cause a violent roar, it would also apply to the end of the pipe acceleration of ~2 gm / sec which would cause it to twist and turn like a snake. It would be hard to hold it in your hand.
However, video shows that there is no obvious force exerted to
the pipe, neither does it make any sound.

I think this pretty much settles it. Now we have actually seen it with our own
eyes, kudos to Steven Krivit...

BenBurch
21st June 2011, 11:59 AM
better would be to just put the unit in a tub of water and measure the heat output.

Correct. Specifically a tub so large that over the course of the test the water never gets anywhere near boiling.

One calorie (small c) raises one gram of water (a ml at std temp) one degree Celsius.

If you know the volume, the starting temperature, and the heat rise, and the tank is well insulated, you know with certainty the total number of calories generated. Period.

Allowing the thing get warm enough to evolve steam simply complicated the whole measurement.

unclep2k
21st June 2011, 12:11 PM
I'm sure the rubber hose acts like a radiator and disipates a lot of the power...but still

ben m
21st June 2011, 12:29 PM
I'm sure the rubber hose acts like a radiator and disipates a lot of the power...but still

a) Rossi says the exact opposite right in this video.

b) The whole point of the "steam dryness meter" in the earlier demo was to show that the hose was carrying steam, not liquid water.

c) The only basis for power measurement is the *assertion* that the hose is carrying dry steam. You now seem to believe that the hose could carry liquid water as well, meaning that the water volume is not a measurement of the power. In other words, you think Rossi's "calorimetry" can't be trusted. Great!

Want to rethink your statement?

Crawdaddy
21st June 2011, 01:47 PM
Yevgen

Not only would it cause a violent roar, it would also apply to the end of the pipe acceleration of ~2 gm / sec which would cause it to twist and turn like a snake. It would be hard to hold it in your hand.
However, video shows that there is no obvious force exerted to
the pipe, neither does it make any sound.

I think this pretty much settles it. Now we have actually seen it with our own
eyes, kudos to Steven Krivit...

I dispute these claims.

A 2g/s^2 acceleration would cause the hose to twist and turn? Isn't that the equivalent acceleration of 2ml of plain water flowing out of the end of the hose per second?

2.3 Liters per second passing through a 1cm aperture makes an violent roar? So if I took a spherical plastic bag with a radius of 8cm (about the size of medium ziplock bag) and expelled the air inside it in one second through a 1cm hole it would make a violent roar?

A very good experiment would be to calibrate the observation by hooking up a common kitchen kettle to a 4 meter hose. They usually have around 1.5kW heating elements in them. I wonder what the steam from a common kettle would look like after travelling through 4 meters of rubber tubing?

Captain_Swoop
21st June 2011, 02:13 PM
He is claiming dry steam, not the water vapour and wet steam you see coming out of a kettle.

Aepervius
21st June 2011, 02:20 PM
Yevgen



I dispute these claims.

A 2g/s^2 acceleration would cause the hose to twist and turn? Isn't that the equivalent acceleration of 2ml of plain water flowing out of the end of the hose per second?

2.3 Liters per second passing through a 1cm aperture makes an violent roar? So if I took a spherical plastic bag with a radius of 8cm (about the size of medium ziplock bag) and expelled the air inside it in one second through a 1cm hole it would make a violent roar?

A very good experiment would be to calibrate the observation by hooking up a common kitchen kettle to a 4 meter hose. They usually have around 1.5kW heating elements in them. I wonder what the steam from a common kettle would look like after travelling through 4 meters of rubber tubing?

Either you have the same steam as at the start of the rubber, and thus the same speed odf 2.3 liter per second of gas, OR you have condensation in the middle of the rubber, then a lower output of steam, but then liquid coming out of the rubber. Which is it you are telling us is ?

Maybe 2.3 liter per second cannot be called a "violent" roar, but it is certainly not an easy-peasy little steam coming out.

Crawdaddy
21st June 2011, 02:45 PM
Aepervius

Either you have the same steam as at the start of the rubber, and thus the same speed odf 2.3 liter per second of gas, OR you have condensation in the middle of the rubber, then a lower output of steam, but then liquid coming out of the rubber. Which is it you are telling us is ?

I am saying that rather than make wild meaningless claims a more potent use of time would be to hook up a kettle to a hose and observe the output.

I find the calculations presented so far unconvincing. It wouldn't surprise me at all if no steam at all came out the end of a 4 meter hose hooked up to a common kettle.

Someone who conducted the experiment and showed experimentally how much energy a 4 meter rubber hose might dissipate along its length would do the first actual work towards debunking the e-cat since the initial announcement.

BenBurch
21st June 2011, 02:51 PM
There is no need to do any experiments to debunk a setup that cannot be replicated, and was stupidly, incompetently wrong on its face...

Crawdaddy
21st June 2011, 03:19 PM
BenBurch

There is no need to do any experiments to debunk a setup that cannot be replicated, and was stupidly, incompetently wrong on its face...


What? You don't want to definitively disprove to Rossi experiment? What about all the old ladies you "rational skeptics" were crowing about protecting from evil scammers in this matter.

If you aren't motivated by altruism and a love of old ladies what is the explanation for all the snide comments and rude remarks?

Are you unwilling to do the experiment because you don't have a kettle? Is that also why you are such an angry man?

Kid Eager
21st June 2011, 03:35 PM
Hi,
by my quick calculations (which may be wrong but feel free to correct), a flow of 2.3litres per second would be pushing a column of *something* over 2.8 metres long out of the end of the 1cm hose each second. You cannot replicate that flow rate with your garden variety kitchen kettle (and yes, I just had a play with my kettle).

BenBurch
21st June 2011, 04:25 PM
BenBurch

...

What? You don't want to definitively disprove to Rossi experiment? What about all the old ladies you "rational skeptics" were crowing about protecting from evil scammers in this matter.

If you aren't motivated by altruism and a love of old ladies what is the explanation for all the snide comments and rude remarks?

Are you unwilling to do the experiment because you don't have a kettle? Is that also why you are such an angry man?

I have offered to do a competent honest job of calorimetry. Free. And trust me, you do not want to pay my hourly rate.

But trying to replicate a part of a magician's trick (for thats all this was) merely by trying to blow steam through a hose is simple stupidity.

As it happens, the behavior of steam is something I know rather a lot about, and can tell you what happens when you use a rubber hose to move live (dry) steam around; not much. You get a little condensation until you get a temperature equilibrium, but then you get live steam for pretty much as long as you would like assuming you have a real source of live steam. Steam is moving though the hose fast enough that it cannot lose much energy to the heated hose, and rubber is a bad conductor of heat.

Crawdaddy
21st June 2011, 04:49 PM
Kid eager

by my quick calculations (which may be wrong but feel free to correct), a flow of 2.3litres per second would be pushing a column of *something* over 2.8 metres long out of the end of the 1cm hose each second. You cannot replicate that flow rate with your garden variety kitchen kettle (and yes, I just had a play with my kettle).

I think Yevgen's calculation (which assumes the entire 1.9ml/s of water is converted to dry steam) shows 29.8m/s at the opening of the hose. How do you calculate 2.8 meters? I suppose the stream of gas would expand significantly after it exits the tube?

If you apply Yevgen's calculation to the case of an electric kettle (1.5kW) you would vaporize around 0.6 grams of water per second. Generating ~0.75l/s of dry steam. The velocity of steam exiting the hose would thus be around 9.5m/s. Is that the rate of dry steam which you observed in your kettle experiement?

Crawdaddy
21st June 2011, 05:02 PM
BenBurch

As it happens, the behavior of steam is something I know rather a lot about, and can tell you what happens when you use a rubber hose to move live (dry) steam around; not much. You get a little condensation until you get a temperature equilibrium, but then you get live steam for pretty much as long as you would like assuming you have a real source of live steam. Steam is moving though the hose fast enough that it cannot lose much energy to the heated hose, and rubber is a bad conductor of heat.

Excellent qualitative description. What is the nature of this equilibrium and how much of the steam's energy does it take to maintain the equilibrium? How much water initially condenses? What is the effect of the condensed water entrained in the hose on the steam quality?

I have offered to do a competent honest job of calorimetry. Free. And trust me, you do not want to pay my hourly rate.

Do you honestly think that if the e-cat was genuine that Rossi would take you up on this offer? You constantly repeat this little quip, if you were doing stand-up comedy at this point the audience would be dead silent.

BenBurch
21st June 2011, 05:17 PM
My opinion;

I honestly believe that if Rossi were even remotely honest, that proper calorimetry would have been done already. The fact that it hasn't been says he is a crook and a swindler.

Now, you want me to calculate for you what every steam plant engineer already knows empirically? I can do that for you!

I need;

1. The type of hose, specific manufacturer, and length.
2. The orientation of the hose.
3. Your signed contract for my regular hourly rate $150/hr.

Aam
22nd June 2011, 04:17 AM
Andrea Rossi
June 22nd, 2011 at 1:26 AM

Dear Jon Soderberg:
Yes, all of this is possible.
I think that something like this will be made in the R&D work of the University of Bologna (by the way: yesterday the research contract with the University of Bologna has been signed.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

So, hopefully something will leak from UoB via the Polywell forums in the next month or so

Kid Eager
22nd June 2011, 04:43 AM
Kid eager



I think Yevgen's calculation (which assumes the entire 1.9ml/s of water is converted to dry steam) shows 29.8m/s at the opening of the hose. How do you calculate 2.8 meters? I suppose the stream of gas would expand significantly after it exits the tube?

If you apply Yevgen's calculation to the case of an electric kettle (1.5kW) you would vaporize around 0.6 grams of water per second. Generating ~0.75l/s of dry steam. The velocity of steam exiting the hose would thus be around 9.5m/s. Is that the rate of dry steam which you observed in your kettle experiement?

Sorry - you're right - I'm out by a factor of ten (I mentally went from cm to mm at one point of calculating the internal volume of the hose). So, the 28m/sec for my rough calc aligns nicely with Yevgen.

About that dry steam - you can't observe it as such because it's invisible. The wet stuff was going briskly, but the kettle cuts off once the boil is reached.

On a slightly tangential note, when I was on destroyers, the boilers generate 1275psi 1000F steam to drive the turbines. Unfortunately it meant that when a pipe developed a leak it became hot very quickly. Being dry steam, it was extremely challenging to track down the source of the leak but the rule was never to use your hands to feel for the leak as the fine jet of steam would slice off the inquiring appendage...

Kid Eager
22nd June 2011, 04:48 AM
Oh, another observation - 28m/s is just over 100kmh... even as an airflow that would be somewhat noticeable.

BenBurch
22nd June 2011, 06:00 AM
BTW, a signed contract is not proof; That is exactly the thing a swindler wants.

Aepervius
22nd June 2011, 06:03 AM
Aepervius



I am saying that rather than make wild meaningless claims a more potent use of time would be to hook up a kettle to a hose and observe the output.

I find the calculations presented so far unconvincing. It wouldn't surprise me at all if no steam at all came out the end of a 4 meter hose hooked up to a common kettle.

Someone who conducted the experiment and showed experimentally how much energy a 4 meter rubber hose might dissipate along its length would do the first actual work towards debunking the e-cat since the initial announcement.

If no steam was coming out at the end of the hose, it would necessaraly means it has condensed, and that has been excluded by Rossi himself so far as I understood. Which is why the calculation from Rossi's Number is so useful.

BenBurch
22nd June 2011, 06:10 AM
BTW, if you want some background on perpetual motion/free energy machines and their long history, I suggest; http://www.amazon.com/Perpetual-motion-obsession-Arthur-Ord-Hume/dp/0760709262

Aepervius
22nd June 2011, 06:20 AM
I prefer the D. Simanek web site : accessible and readily available for free if you want to interrest somebody into a bit :

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

BenBurch
22nd June 2011, 06:35 AM
I prefer the Dymek web site : accessible and readily available for free if you want to interrest somebody into a bit :

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

Thank you!!! Bookmarking that.

Cuddles
22nd June 2011, 07:01 AM
It wouldn't surprise me at all if no steam at all came out the end of a 4 meter hose hooked up to a common kettle.

In which case you're agreeing with the rest of us that Rossi's measurements, and therefore the entire basis for all his claims, are completely meaningless, since he's the one who is relying on the claim that the only thing coming out of his hose is dry steam. If that's not actually the case, then every single claim he's made about how much power is produced is complete nonsense.

Someone who conducted the experiment and showed experimentally how much energy a 4 meter rubber hose might dissipate along its length would do the first actual work towards debunking the e-cat since the initial announcement.

Yeah, that's not how it works. There's this little thing called the "burden of proof" you may have heard of, which lies squarely on the person making the claim. As you now agree, Rossi's claim simply does stand up to scrutiny, since the measurements he bases them on are nonsense. There's no need for anyone else to do any work at this point, it's just one among millions of unsupported claims. The only person who needs to do any work is Rossi - it's his claim, so he needs to provide the evidence. All we're doing here is pointing out that nothing he's done so far actually constitutes any kind of useful evidence.

Dancing David
22nd June 2011, 07:42 AM
BenBurch




What? You don't want to definitively disprove to Rossi experiment? What about all the old ladies you "rational skeptics" were crowing about protecting from evil scammers in this matter.

If you aren't motivated by altruism and a love of old ladies what is the explanation for all the snide comments and rude remarks?

Are you unwilling to do the experiment because you don't have a kettle? Is that also why you are such an angry man?

Wow, the fact that you resort to such rhetoric again and again, may cause one to question your ability to make rational arguments.

Dancing David
22nd June 2011, 07:44 AM
Do you honestly think that if the e-cat was genuine that Rossi would take you up on this offer? You constantly repeat this little quip, if you were doing stand-up comedy at this point the audience would be dead silent.

Um, that is for Rossi to answer, why do you resort to these bizzare rhetorical arguments.

Why do you think Rossi is not using a still water bath and other standard tools of calorimetry?

nathan
22nd June 2011, 09:18 AM
Looking at the video I did some back-of-envelope calculations.

Water use is 7Kg/Hr which is just under 2g/S. The water temperature increase is 77K. As the specific heat capacity of water is 4.2J/g, we have 2 * 4.2 * 77 = 650W needed to produce that volume of temperature increase.

As to the steam volume, that's difficult, but let's guess at 100ml/S, after all the pipe's quite narrow, and it was puffing out, rather than jetting out. If it is a 5mm internal radius pipe, that's a velocity out the end of the pipe of 1.2m/S, and it looked less than that to me.
From my high school chemistry, I remember that 1 mole of gas is 22l at STP, and H20 is 18g/mole. .1 / 22 * 18 = 80mg of water. We're not at STP, so 1 mole will take more volume, so I'll have erred on the high side.

As the heat of evaporation is 2.2KJ/g, another 190W to evaporate that water, allowing the remaining water to be wet steam.

So that's a total energy use of about 840W, which is less that 10% more than the calculated input of 780W (he's presuming the input voltage). Given the error bars on all the numbers I've used, it just looks like an elaborate kettle.

Craig B
22nd June 2011, 09:31 AM
I hope we won't be eating crow after the Defkalion press conference tomorrow - when all will be revealed, in particular the "commercial issues that are of interest not only to Defkalion’s future customers, but also to the political society of our country" i.e. Greece, where commercial and political society would be only too happy to receive some consolation at the present time.

Crawdaddy
22nd June 2011, 09:46 AM
Kid Eager

On a slightly tangential note, when I was on destroyers, the boilers generate 1275psi 1000F steam to drive the turbines. Unfortunately it meant that when a pipe developed a leak it became hot very quickly. Being dry steam, it was extremely challenging to track down the source of the leak but the rule was never to use your hands to feel for the leak as the fine jet of steam would slice off the inquiring appendage...

Wow that sounds scary. It is interesting that such amazingly powerful jet of steam would be invisible! How loud was it?

Aepervius

If no steam was coming out at the end of the hose, it would necessaraly means it has condensed, and that has been excluded by Rossi himself so far as I understood. Which is why the calculation from Rossi's Number is so useful.

My post was unclear. I was referring to the outcome of an experiment with a home kettle attached to a 4 meter hose. My comment was meant to convey the thought that a 4 meter hose might dissipate a significant portion of the 1.5kW of heat and that the steam would condense in the hose. Thus it would be impossible to measure the input power by observing the output.

Rossi is certainly not (nor would any professor of physics) measuring steam quality at the end of the 4 meter hose. The steam quality must be measured at the output of the device.

Dancing David

Wow, the fact that you resort to such rhetoric again and again, may cause one to question your ability to make rational arguments.

Why don't you call out the much more egregious use of useless rhetoric on the part of people who think the e-cat is a fraud?

Why do you think Rossi is not using a still water bath and other standard tools of calorimetry?


Still water bath calorimetry is not a standard technique! Google it! Read a book about calorimetry! What examples can you provide where a device containing resistive heaters designed to produce steam was ever immersed in a still water bath?

Now google "steam quality by capacitance measurement". Which technique is more widely used? The experts that measured the output power of the device are not only good at what they do, but by endorsing the result publicly they are at risk of career suicide.

If the Rossi device is a fraud the scientific community will hound all the professors associated with the measurements to date out of their jobs. In science your credibility is everything. It is what you spend your whole career building. No scientist would ever endorse the Rossi result without extensive observation. Today Rossi announced an agreement with U of Bologna to conduct research on the device. Five professors are involved. The legacy of cold fusion is the destruction of the careers of many scientists, including one of the premier electrochemists that ever lived and the co-discoverer of quantum electrodynamics (which is the foundation of the standard model!). If cold fusion can take down these titans of science do you think anyone is keen to endorse something like this on the say so of a man of dubious pedigree? The fact that anyone with credibility is willing to go there is amazing.

A bunch of rhetoric about n-rays will likely now be posted. Let's see if you comment on it.

Emet
22nd June 2011, 10:01 AM
Today Rossi announced an agreement with U of Bologna to conduct research on the device. Five professors are involved.

Link requested. Thanks.

Craig B
22nd June 2011, 10:35 AM
All I can find is this extremely laconic announcement of such an important event, at
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=22#comments

Response to a query about the application of the device to underfloor central heating:

Dear Jon Soderberg:
Yes, all of this is possible.
I think that something like this will be made in the R&D work of the University of Bologna (by the way: yesterday the research contract with the University of Bologna has been signed.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Dancing David
22nd June 2011, 11:00 AM
I hope we won't be eating crow after the Defkalion press conference tomorrow - when all will be revealed, in particular the "commercial issues that are of interest not only to Defkalion’s future customers, but also to the political society of our country" i.e. Greece, where commercial and political society would be only too happy to receive some consolation at the present time.

I have said I am will ing to say WOW if it works as stated.

Emet
22nd June 2011, 11:03 AM
All I can find is this extremely laconic announcement of such an important event, at
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=22#comments


Thanks. :) I expected something like that.

Quite an announcement, eh? :rolleyes:

Craig B
22nd June 2011, 11:05 AM
Dancing David

Don't try to say WOW when your mouth's full of crow!

Dancing David
22nd June 2011, 11:09 AM
Dancing David



Why don't you call out the much more egregious use of useless rhetoric on the part of people who think the e-cat is a fraud?

My choice Crawdaddy has been asked specific question by me, to which he responded with rhetoric, rather than answers.

That is why.

I ignore a lot of rhetoric on both sides, Crawdaddy has refused to answer specific questions.



Still water bath calorimetry is not a standard technique! Google it! Read a book about calorimetry! What examples can you provide where a device containing resistive heaters designed to produce steam was ever immersed in a still water bath?

Wow, you could be educational...

tell me exactly how Rossi used any standard procedure?

Is his measurement of steam pressure standard? Is his measurement of steam produced standard?

I would like to know.

They way that they measured the dryness of the steam was under question way earlier in the thread.


Now google "steam quality by capacitance measurement". Which technique is more widely used? The experts that measured the output power of the device are not only good at what they do, but by endorsing the result publicly they are at risk of career suicide.

Really?

Show me how exactly they used standard procedures for such a thing. I would like to learn if they did.

Did they use the standard methodologies?


If the Rossi device is a fraud the scientific community will hound all the professors associated with the measurements to date out of their jobs. In science your credibility is everything.

More argument from authority rather than data.

It is what you spend your whole career building. No scientist would ever endorse the Rossi result without extensive observation.

It is not the observation which concerns me, it is the data.

So how exactly did they measure the heat energy transferred to the steam? Did they follow the standard methodologies?

Today Rossi announced an agreement with U of Bologna to conduct research on the device. Five professors are involved. The legacy of cold fusion is the destruction of the careers of many scientists, including one of the premier electrochemists that ever lived and the co-discoverer of quantum electrodynamics (which is the foundation of the standard model!). If cold fusion can take down these titans of science do you think anyone is keen to endorse something like this on the say so of a man of dubious pedigree? The fact that anyone with credibility is willing to go there is amazing.

More appeal to authority.

A bunch of rhetoric about n-rays will likely now be posted. Let's see if you comment on it.

Why are you going to post in the threads in R&P, Politics and Social Issues and Current Events.

try teaching me about how Rossi did things right, that would be appeciated by me. :)

I ignore a lot of rhetoric most of the time.

try asking Crawdaddy what specific research there is that supports cold fusion.

Dancing David
22nd June 2011, 11:11 AM
Dancing David

Don't try to say WOW when your mouth's full of crow!

Sorry Craig i am about to IGNORE you, I have nothing to eat crow over. back off, read the thread again. Why would I eat crow? try engaging in discussion.

have you actually read my posts?

excaza
22nd June 2011, 11:13 AM
Do you honestly think that if the e-cat was genuine that Rossi would take you up on this offer?

Yes.

Emet
22nd June 2011, 11:17 AM
Sorry Craig i am about to IGNORE you, I have nothing to eat crow over. back off, read the thread again. Why would I eat crow? try engaging in discussion.

have you actually read my posts?

Once again, I think you are missing an attempt at a joke. ;)

@Craig B: You really need to use smilies. :)

ETA:

Post 1394 (http:///forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7262131&postcount=1394)

Post 1396 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7262150&postcount=1396)

Post 1397 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7262246&postcount=1397)

Post 1399 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7262345&postcount=1399)

Craig B
22nd June 2011, 03:22 PM
Emet

Yes you're right, I must.:) :) And I do read Dancing David's posts! May I hope that he returns the compliment? :)

My sense of humour is perhaps too dry.

unclep2k
23rd June 2011, 02:14 AM
Early news from Greece
Ivy Matt | June 22, 2011 at 10:23 PM | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/pYQbF-1gy

The Greek website energypress.gr has a recent press release apparently giving details on Defkalion Green Technologies' commercial arrangements ahead of their press conference.

Among the details:

The company's funding is completely private.
The company has €300-400 million in investments.
The company will build three industrial units in Xanthi, Thrace.
Apart from the large demonstration reactor, the company will produce large 1-3 MW units and smaller 10-30 kW household units.
The first prototype reactors will be produced by the end of July, regular production will begin in November, and the first household units will be introduced next January.
The cost of the device (household unit?), used as a water and space heater, will be €4000-5000.
A converter to produce electricity from the unit will cost an extra €500-900.

Craig B
23rd June 2011, 03:55 AM
€300-400m. That didn't all come from Rossi's pocket, for sure. So what is the source of this private funding? But I'm glad it's not public funding, that the impoverished Greek taxpayers have had to stump up.

Building THREE industrial units PLUS prototypes, all by July, sounds impressive. If they achieve it, I promise to say :) WOW :)

Dancing David
23rd June 2011, 05:30 AM
Emet

Yes you're right, I must.:) :) And I do read Dancing David's posts! May I hope that he returns the compliment? :)

My sense of humour is perhaps too dry.

Its cool dude, my brain was fried from too much LA Noire and landscaping outside. My sarcasm meter was like totally turned off, as was my memory.

I think it is very funny when I remember it is sarcasm.

The grin is best : + D =:D

Dancing David
23rd June 2011, 05:44 AM
Early news from Greece
Ivy Matt | June 22, 2011 at 10:23 PM | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/pYQbF-1gy

The Greek website energypress.gr has a recent press release apparently giving details on Defkalion Green Technologies' commercial arrangements ahead of their press conference.

Among the details:

The company's funding is completely private.
The company has €300-400 million in investments.
The company will build three industrial units in Xanthi, Thrace.
Apart from the large demonstration reactor, the company will produce large 1-3 MW units and smaller 10-30 kW household units.
The first prototype reactors will be produced by the end of July, regular production will begin in November, and the first household units will be introduced next January.
The cost of the device (household unit?), used as a water and space heater, will be €4000-5000.
A converter to produce electricity from the unit will cost an extra €500-900.



Why is it that these second hand press release always exagerate what the original says?

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=el&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fenergypress.gr%2Fportal%2Fresource% 2FcontentObject%2Fid%2Fca24b411-93c5-4baf-8a5f-2d06d74e9424&act=url


Presented on Thursday, finally, officially, the energy investment project of the Greek company Defkalion Green Technologies SA on the industrial application of scientific discovery of the famous "cold fusion nickel and hydrogen" Italian professors Sergio Foccardi and Andrea Rossi has created great interest internationally.

Investing a total budget of 300 to 400 million, includes three industrial units, which will settle in Thrace. 1 – 3 MW. This will produce a massive reactor nickel - hydrogen, the second, based on the reactor will produce household units for heat energy capacity 10 - 30 KW and the third will produce large units 1 - 3 MW

Based on the timing of investors by the end of July we produced the first laboratory reactors, and since November there will be regular industrial production


That means the total investment by the end of the plan will be 300-400 million Euro, not that they have the money in hand. That is what they hope to raise to make things happen.

Look at the bold, while garbled it is saying, IF we get the MONEY then we will build in JULY.

Craig B
23rd June 2011, 06:02 AM
Dancing David

Thanks. So it's give us €400m *first* and then we may deign to sell you generators for €5,900 a pop!

Scratch that WOW.

Cuddles
23rd June 2011, 06:45 AM
My comment was meant to convey the thought that a 4 meter hose might dissipate a significant portion of the 1.5kW of heat and that the steam would condense in the hose. Thus it would be impossible to measure the input power by observing the output.

Rossi is certainly not (nor would any professor of physics) measuring steam quality at the end of the 4 meter hose.

You're so nearly there. Yes, it is impossible to observe the input power by observing the output. Your problem is that instead of coming to the obvious conclusion - that Rossi did not actually measure the input power and therefore his claims are entirely baseless - you're instead assuming that he actually did have a good measurement and therefore must have done something different from what he has actually stated.

It's virtually a textbook example of believer arguments. Instead of looking at the workings and coming to a conclusion that may well be different from the claimed conclusion, you're instead starting with the conclusion and then trying to find excuses why the workings don't actually seem to lead to it.

The steam quality must be measured at the output of the device.

You see, so nearly there. Not "must", "should". The steam quality should be measured at the output of the device. The fact that it apparently was not does not mean that actually it was and therefore the results stand, it simply means the results are nonsense.

Yevgen Barsukov
23rd June 2011, 07:02 AM
Oh, another observation - 28m/s is just over 100kmh... even as an airflow that would be somewhat noticeable.

"Somewhat noticeable"?? According to the link that I put into my original
message (scale used in weather reporting) it is a "violent storm"!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaufort_scale
Scroll down to the table and find an entry that corresponds to 28m/sec.

Btw, after some thinking, we need to make some upward adjustment to
my calculation.
I calculated the volume production of the steam as 2.36 liter / sec at STP (standard temperature and pressure). The current version of IUPAC's standard is a temperature of 0 °C (273.15 K, 32 °F)

However, 0C vapor would only exist in very diluted state in some other gases.
If we are talking about pure steam, its temperature have to be 100C or above.
So we need to talk volume at 100C. Since all gases expand with temperature increase, we have to apply Clapeyron's law:

PV=nRT

where n is the amount of substance of gas and R is the ideal, or universal, gas constant, equal to the product of Boltzmann's constant and Avogadro's constant. In SI units, n is measured in moles, and T in kelvin. R has the value 8.314 J·K−1·mol−1.

Given that n,R and P are constant, and temperature is changing from
T1 to T2, we get volume change:

V1 = nRT1/p
V2 = nRT2/p

V2/V1= T2/T1
For T1=273 K (0C), and T2 = 373 K (100C) we get
V1/V2 = 1.37

This increases the volume rate estimate from
2.36 liter / sec to 3.23 liter / sec.
This changes the exhaust rate from 5 mm radius pipe from
29.87 m /sec
to
40.9 m /sec

Our Rossi-weather just got upgraded from violent storm to
a hurricane (e.g ≥ 32.7 m/s = Hurricane by Beaufort scale).

So why are we seeing only puny wisps of water that are floating
and curling their way at some lazy centimeters / sec?
Looking at it, they appear to be even less than expected for electrical
heating coil of 750 W.
Ah, but there is an explanation! If all the water that is coming into
the machine is not getting anywhere, but just accumulating withing
the apparatus (which was empty before) it has to be heated! So the
coil's heating power is getting used to warm up the accumulating water
instead of producing steam. Once the apparatus is full, of cause
the "demonstration" has to be restarted (that is why they don't last very
long, at least not with continuous supervision which would prevent
quickly emptying the water from the casing)...

Regards,
Yevgen

unclep2k
23rd June 2011, 08:21 AM
Question..at the advertised flow rate of the Krivit demo, how much energy would it take to get 20 degreec water up to 100 degrees regardless of steam quality?

nathan
23rd June 2011, 08:33 AM
less than the electrical energy claimed to be being input:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7303999#post7303999

Crawdaddy
23rd June 2011, 09:00 AM
Cuddles

You're so nearly there. Yes, it is impossible to observe the input power by observing the output. Your problem is that instead of coming to the obvious conclusion - that Rossi did not actually measure the input power and therefore his claims are entirely baseless - you're instead assuming that he actually did have a good measurement and therefore must have done something different from what he has actually stated.

Your condescending attitude is not appreciated. You consistently fail to understand what I am saying.

Here is a summary of my position: The only explanation for the observed results is fraud or legitimacy. There is absolutely no way the results to date are consistent with honest error.

ou see, so nearly there. Not "must", "should". The steam quality should be measured at the output of the device. The fact that it apparently was not does not mean that actually it was and therefore the results stand, it simply means the results are nonsense.

The steam quality is always measured at the outlet in every experiment so far. Please do some basic research before going off on strange tangents. You might actually make a significant contribution to this discussion.

BenBurch
23rd June 2011, 10:31 AM
This gets more hilarious every time I look.

But the courts are not going to find this to be funny.

Yevgen Barsukov
23rd June 2011, 10:41 AM
Question..at the advertised flow rate of the Krivit demo, how much energy would it take to get 20 degreec water up to 100 degrees regardless of steam quality?

One thing to keep in mind is that there is no guaranty that _all_ the water
is even reaching 100C. The more likely arrangement is
a lot of pipes or empty space in the device where water is stored,
and a heater that is located in a much smaller volume close to
the temperature sensor.

This way small amount of water can be happily boiling, producing
these little wisps of vapor that we observed lazily coming out from the end of the pipe and keeping the sensor at 100C, while most of the water is just sitting there, slowly warming up. Once reservoir is filled, "demonstration" stops. E.g the whole thing is never close to thermal equilibrium.

Regards,
Yevgen

BenBurch
23rd June 2011, 10:51 AM
One thing to keep in mind is that there is no guaranty that _all_ the water
is even reaching 100C. The more likely arrangement is
a lot of pipes or empty space in the device where water is stored,
and a heater that is located in a much smaller volume close to
the temperature sensor.

This way small amount of water can be happily boiling, producing
these little wisps of vapor that we observed lazily coming out from the end of the pipe and keeping the sensor at 100C, while most of the water is just sitting there, slowly warming up. Once reservoir is filled, "demonstration" stops. E.g the whole thing is never close to thermal equilibrium.

Regards,
Yevgen


Very likely.

Even in steam locomotives we see this effect; When you are bringing the boiler online, the majority of the boiling happens around the firebox, with the water at the front tube sheet not boiling and not even being close to thermal equilibrium.

Generally, too, the front is where water is introduced to the boiler so as not to damp steam generation as quickly and not to put thermal stress on the firebox, which can least tolerate it do to the number of staybolts and corners.

BTW, enough surface area and you can evolve a considerable amount of saturated water vapor without any boiling happening at all.

Also, can anybody tell me about this steam dryer he claims to have used?

Most times, a steam dryer means a set of baffles that attempts to keep liquid water droplets from getting into the engine, but there is another sort of steam dryer that would absolutely be cheating; A superheater.

In fact, any steam engine that does not have a superheater is said to be using saturated steam; That is, there still may be mist, though no large droplets.

If he used a superheater, there is your rogue energy input, right there.

Reality Check
23rd June 2011, 04:23 PM
The steam quality is always measured at the outlet in every experiment so far.
Can you tell us about the instrument that was used to determine the steam quality in all of these experiments?

As far as I can see, there have been no experiments published - just public demos. In these demos, no instrument to measure 'steam quality' was used. What was used was a relative humidity probe. The problems with this and other problems with the demo have already been pointed out in the thread, e.g. Here are some relevant posts... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7193215#post7193215)

In science, a badly performed experiment (or demo) is a null result. It is impossible to draw any conclusions from it. It is a case of Rossi having to do the experiment again but competently this time, e.g. with the right instruments used correctly.

There is no explanation for the observed results because there are no valid observations.
The best we can say so far is that Rossi has re-invented the water heater. €5,900 seems a lot for a kettle though :D.

Crawdaddy
23rd June 2011, 04:59 PM
Reality Check

Can you tell us about the instrument that was used to determine the steam quality in all of these experiments?

In the experiments in question the steam quality was measured at the outlet of the chimney. A temperature probe was used to confirm that the steam was above boiling (superheated at atmospheric pressure). Super heated steam cannot by definition be wet.

The relative humidity data is irrelevant to the measurement. However according to the vortex mailing list it will measure 100%RH at 100C regardless of the steam quality, and a lower value for super heated steam above that temperature.

The uncertainty of these measurements is obvious but the measurements are still plausible. The latest experiment is the most questionable because of the high input power (which was only seen once whereas in other demos it was seen to vary over time).

Again the only reasonable explanation is legitimacy or fraud.

If you watch the most recent half hour video about the e-cat you will see claims of explosions and 120kW with no input power made by Levi as well as wild claims made by a multitude of other who are not Rossi. Even if it is shown that error may be a plausible explanation for the Krivit video the other claims make honest error impossible.

here is a link to the video:

http://vimeo.com/25501969

In summary the latest video from krivit does not in any way prove the legitimacy of the e-cat but other tests are conclusive enough to eliminate honest error, which is certainly not eliminated in the most recent test. Keep in mind the latest test comes with the least data available for any of the tests so far and so is the easiest to poke holes in.

unclep2k
23rd June 2011, 05:13 PM
http://www.xanthipress.gr/eidiseis/politiki/8178-episimi-parousiasi-tiw-defcalion-.html

Reality Check
23rd June 2011, 05:28 PM
Reality Check
In the experiments in question the steam quality was measured at the outlet of the chimney.

What experiments? You have linked to a video.

A temperature probe was used to confirm that the steam was above boiling (superheated at atmospheric pressure). Super heated steam cannot by definition be wet.

So there was no measurement of 'steam quality' - just a temperature measurement.

Do you know why Rossi used a relative humidity probe in his demo if there was no point in it?

Again the only reasonable explanation is legitimacy or fraud.

Then given that there are only demos of the apparatus then I would say fraud (according to your only reasonable explanation list) since legitimacy implies the confidence to publish the result in teh scientific literatures.
But I would also add delusion and incompetence as reasonable explanations.

Craig B
23rd June 2011, 06:35 PM
So here it is. Dekaflion has spoken: http://www.defkalion-energy.com/White%20Paper_DGT.pdf . There are some technical descriptions of the proposed products. Are they plausible?

What concerns me the most (apart from the traditional Wright brothers reference on page 9 of the Defkalion paper - at least they leave Galileo's ghost in peace!) is the marketing strategy outlined on page 7: Defkalion shall sell the rights to manufacture its products (presumably the bolt-on "Hyperion" components) while the e-cat "kernel" is manufactured by as yet unrecruited and untrained workers in as yet unbuilt units in Xanthi, Thrace.

Mmm ... I'll think about that. I believe I've come across marketing of licenses before in the free energy field. However that may be, we're now many miles away from Rossi's original assurance:I am assuming all the risks. No one is risking any money except me. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3123849.ece .

Interesting that Defkalion should use the name Hyperion for its power units, because there's already a company, Hyperion Power Generation, with a comparable product - mini nuclear reactors - and very similar motives and aspirations:

Hyperion power modules (HPM's) are a perfect alternative for those communities -- such as government facilities, hospital and college campuses ( ... ) over 25% of the world’s population does not have access to clean water. Hyperion Power can solve this appalling situation by providing the power to pump, clean, and process life’s essential element, thereby turning the tide on disease, poverty and social unrest. http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/about.html

Hyperion's to-date production record is similar to Defkalion's as well.

(I)t has taken its first firm orders and plans to start mass production within five years. 'Our goal is to generate electricity for 10 cents a watt anywhere in the world,' said John Deal, chief executive of Hyperion. 'They will cost approximately $25m each. For a community with 10,000 households, that is a very affordable $250 per home.' http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos

unclep2k
23rd June 2011, 08:09 PM
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3208908.ece

Craig B
23rd June 2011, 08:49 PM
unclep2k
Thanks for the link. Can you offer any further enlightenment on this extract?

After the press conference, the inventor Andrea Rossi also confirmed that an agreement regarding commissioned research into the energy catalyzer, worth EUR 500,000, was finally signed with the University of Bologna on Wednesday after several weeks of negotiations. The agreement which formally is made with the company EFA srl with Rossi’s wife Maddalena Pascucci as principal owner, will last for two years.

For more sceptical views of the Defkalion announcement, please see the comments at: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/defkalion-green-technologies-new.html

nathan
23rd June 2011, 11:34 PM
What concerns me the most ... is the marketing strategy outlined on page 7: Defkalion shall sell the rights to manufacture its products (presumably the bolt-on "Hyperion" components) while the e-cat "kernel" is manufactured by as yet unrecruited and untrained workers in as yet unbuilt units in Xanthi, Thrace.

Mmm ... I'll think about that. I believe I've come across marketing of licenses before in the free energy field.

Notice that such a set up will allow excellent finger pointing to occur when the device fails to generate more electricity than it uses. The 'fault' will be found in the Hyperion bolt-on, which is not extracting all the energy in the steam emitted from the e-cat. See? the e-cat is working perfectly, it's your sub-standard generator that's the problem.

Jimmy42
24th June 2011, 01:38 AM
Nathan: If the thing can barely boil water, the Carnot efficiency would be quite low and require a (relatively) huge heat sink. Might not even be able to compete with fossil fuels.

Captain_Swoop
24th June 2011, 04:42 AM
My dad is a Model Engineer (and retired Marine Engineer (steam)) he has several 5 inch gauge 'live steam' locomotives. They produce more steam and hotter than the Rossi device from what I have read so far.

Dancing David
24th June 2011, 08:32 AM
The uncertainty of these measurements is obvious but the measurements are still plausible. The latest experiment is the most questionable because of the high input power (which was only seen once whereas in other demos it was seen to vary over time).



So what is the level of error did they follow standard protocols at all, what level of error is there in this measure of heat out put?

Dancing David
24th June 2011, 08:34 AM
http://www.xanthipress.gr/eidiseis/politiki/8178-episimi-parousiasi-tiw-defcalion-.html

Once I can understand you can link to Google translations as well as I can:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=el&u=http://www.xanthipress.gr/eidiseis/politiki/8178-episimi-parousiasi-tiw-defcalion-.html&ei=QK4ETsSrOMG20AGS-t32Cg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCMQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.xanthipress.gr/eidiseis/politiki/8178-episimi-parousiasi-tiw-defcalion-.html%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D792%26bih%3D425%26prmd%3Di vns

Crawdaddy
24th June 2011, 09:21 AM
Reality check

What experiments? You have linked to a video.

There is a giant thread filled with links to all the experiments and data available to date on the net. You are posting on it.

Two other threads with contributors who have significantly more expertise than posters here are found here:

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2829&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

or here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/

Feel free to inform yourself.

But I would also add delusion and incompetence as reasonable explanations.

It is far more likely that you are delusional and incompetent than the several professors of physical science who have all looked at the instrument first hand.

Dancing David

So what is the level of error did they follow standard protocols at all, what level of error is there in this measure of heat out put?

Here is a video of Rossi calculating the output of his reactor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTz5Bq6dsA

BenBurch
24th June 2011, 09:40 AM
My dad is a Model Engineer (and retired Marine Engineer (steam)) he has several 5 inch gauge 'live steam' locomotives. They produce more steam and hotter than the Rossi device from what I have read so far.

They HAVE to. A steam engine's efficiency is proportional to the pressure, and pressure is proportional (when the throttle is closed) to the temperature.

CriticalThanking
24th June 2011, 09:50 AM
So what is the level of error did they follow standard protocols at all, what level of error is there in this measure of heat out put?

Dancing David

Here is a video of Rossi calculating the output of his reactor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTz5Bq6dsA

Crawdaddy, in what way is that an answer to Dancing David's questions? Calculations are based upon inputs. He is asking how the inputs were measured, including error bars. The video addresses neither of those issues.

CT

Horatius
24th June 2011, 10:15 AM
So here it is. Dekaflion has spoken: http://www.defkalion-energy.com/White%20Paper_DGT.pdf . There are some technical descriptions of the proposed products. Are they plausible?




Well, once again they seem to be talking absolute bollocks when it comes to patents. From page 4 of that document:


the EU patent is on its final stage,


I'd love to know which EU patent this is referring to, as the only one I found:

EP2259998 METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CARRYING OUT NICKEL AND HYDROGEN EXOTHERMAL REACTIONS (https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP08873805&tab=main)

isn't anywhere near "its final stage". In fact, from what I can see there, the EPO examiners haven't even taken a look at it yet. Take a look at the "Event History" and the "All Documents" tabs there to see what I mean.

There is what looks like an automatically generated form letter from 29-11-2010, which is sent out for all applications where the EPO acted as the International Search Authority, and their response to that letter on 17-12-2010.

There's also an interesting submission from a third party on March 3, 2011, which points out Rossi's public statements about how the catalyst is essential, and suggests that the application is invalid as the catalysts are not identified. Good job, guy who sent that in!

This is no where close to its "final stage".



They also say:

while the global patent is pending


Well, duh, that's all a "global patent" (patent application, actually) will ever do, as there's no mechanism to actually issue a global patent. Their international application under the PCT has to enter national phase in every country in which they want to pursue patent protection, as patents, as opposed to merely applications, are still issued almost entirely under the national laws of each country. The EPO, which issues European patents, is the one exception, and even then, it doesn't apply everywhere in Europe, it only applies in those countries that recognize the EPO.

So, even more bollocks.

Dancing David
24th June 2011, 10:29 AM
Dancing David



Here is a video of Rossi calculating the output of his reactor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTz5Bq6dsA

And the error bars are?

Is it standard methodology?

What methods was used to measure the actual volume of water, I believe this is in dispute. What source of error and level of error is there in the 7 kg/hr alleged flow rate. Did they use a flow meter upstream from the device input? I believe that they did this rather inaccurately.

What is the error bar for the method they used to measure the flow rate?

It would appear from the Polyweel threads that there was no metter, as it would appear from other thraeds as well.

So IF (and that is an if) there was no metering of the inflow then we could have an error rate as high as 100%, now if they justa ssumed the flow rate then that is still as high as 100%, other methodd would vary depending upon sample size , time, duration , time of day and variation in water pressure.

So Crawdaddy, I believe there was no metering, do yiou have data to suggest that there was?

ETA:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/04/swedish-researchers-confirm-rossi-and.html

"Before starting, Kullander and Essén calibrated the water flow and estimated it at 6.5 kg per hour. The power required to heat the flowing water from 18 degrees and convert it completely into steam was calculated to 4.7 kW."

So they calibrated and estimated before the device was hooked up?

Right, so we don't actually know the flow rate. A diameter difference within the device could vary the flow, usage in the building with the device could alter the flow, usage in the section of water supply based upon the same main could vary teh water pressure, municipal issues could vary the water pressure.

hence the is considerable error in just estimating that flow.

Crawdaddy
24th June 2011, 10:40 AM
Crawdaddy, in what way is that an answer to Dancing David's questions? Calculations are based upon inputs. He is asking how the inputs were measured, including error bars. The video addresses neither of those issues.

The input power is clearly shown in the video.

The output power is measured by the technique described by rossi in his calculation.

Do you want me to write out the calculation?

The Krivit video is very light on data. No conclusion can be drawn from it without more information. Dancing David no doubt understands this and so asks rhetorical questions.

The measurement of superheated steam at atmospheric pressure is a well published technique used for high pressure steam quality measurement. The difference in this case is that Rossi claims to generate superheated steam at atmospheric pressure. This is possible if heating of the water vapor occurs after boiling.

Here is a link to a page that will teach you the how to calculate steam quality by the standard technique. Which is what rossi is using. It took me five seconds to find this information.

http://www.plantservices.com/articles/2003/378.html

The obvious source of error in the experiment is the temperature of the steam and the pressure at the chimney exit. This is very basic stuff. If you need it to be explained to you it is unlikely that you can contribute to a valuable discussion of the rossi results.

If you already understand it then please stop wasting my time. If you care enough you can find several calculations of possible errors in the rossi temperature and pressure measurements. I find none of them explain away the result as simple error.

I am not here to lead you by the nose to data and teach you how to do calculations. If you want to challenge the Rossi result on the basis of measured values and quantitative calculations then you will have to find and present data on your own.

Dancing David
24th June 2011, 11:41 AM
The output power is measured by the technique described by rossi in his calculation.



The obvious source of error is that they did not measure the input flow of water, so how do they know how much water went into the device to produce steam?

he places 7 kg./hr. into the equation, but we don't know that at all.

Is that something they did emasure, I haven't found it yet. I have three numerous sources that say they did not meter it and one that says they estimated it.

What do you have?

Crawdaddy
24th June 2011, 11:47 AM
Dancing David

So they calibrated and estimated before the device was hooked up?

Right, so we don't actually know the flow rate. A diameter difference within the device could vary the flow, usage in the building with the device could alter the flow, usage in the section of water supply based upon the same main could vary teh water pressure, municipal issues could vary the water pressure.

hence the is considerable error in just estimating that flow.

This betrays a complete lack of any interest in digging for information about these experiments yourself.

The answers to these questions have been so thoroughly talked about with regards to the e-cat observations that if you haven't already seen it then you just aren't paying attention.

This type of post is a good example of the type of question that won't get a detailed response from me. It is so basic and absolutely hashed out elsewhere that restating it here is pointless.

You may have noticed by now that I find the tone of your posts annoying. This is partly because you often make poorly researched assumptions and then expect me to correct you and with thoroughly researched and proven responses. Which you then don't acknowledge. I find this insulting.

What I find even more annoying is that the tone of your posts betray an extreme disinterest in actually finding the truth in this matter. Posts like "link one paper that proves cold fusion is real!" are the best examples of this. It sounds exactly like a creationist would say if you replaced cold fusion with evolution.

From my perspective you seem like a creationist. You seem to be using the same "tactics" they use in order to "win" a debate with me. I wonder what richard dawkins would say to you if you said "show me one paper that proves evolution" or if you said to Dr. Steven Novella "show me one paper that proves vaccines don't cause autism"?

HoverBoarder
24th June 2011, 11:53 AM
Reality check

There is a giant thread filled with links to all the experiments and data available to date on the net. You are posting on it.

Two other threads with contributors who have significantly more expertise than posters here are found here:

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2829&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

or here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/

Feel free to inform yourself.


Sure, but the posters on those threads have still overwhelmingly concluded that the Rossi claims are faked.

Here is a link to a quick experiment that one of the posters did to show that the steam levels that Rossi claimed were faked:

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2829&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=2805

The poster also included information on pressure variations to show that Rossi's inconsistent energy claims could not be explained by dry steam because of the speed of the steam exciting the hose.

Here are a few of the good comments.

I have just done a preliminary trial using a kettle on a gas hob. I allowed a kettle to get to a steady state by continuing heating after it reached boiling, then allowed it to boil continuously for a few moments to get to a 'steady state'. I measured the rate of vapour emission by removing from heat and measuring the mass, then boiling for a minute at a time and re-weighing. The vapour emitted was a surprisingly steady 25g/min. (Lowest was 23g, highest was 26g).
What is ridiculous is Rossi saying there is no condensation, yet takes clear and obvious steps to rid the pipe of water before pulling it out of the wall.

What is ridiculous is the nytek video where you can clearly hear condesate bubbling away inside the pipe.

What is ridiculous is the measurement (supposedly) of JUST 100C at one end of a 4m pipe, yet Rossi claims it is still 100C and has lost no heat by the end of the pipe! A perfectly insulated pipe, eh!?

Rossi went to pull the hose straight out, thought better of it and then backed off before tilting the hose to let the water run out!!!!

He holds the hose with the fingers of his right hand for several seconds. When I did my run, I unthinkingly went to touch the hose once with bare fingers, and dropped the ____ thing double pronto!! Not something you do twice!!

In other words, if there was a flow rate of 7 litres/hr of dry steamcoming out of the pipe, then there would be a pressue drop of 11kPa. As we know the pressure at the end of the pipe is ambient, so the pressure in the E-cat must be just over 1.1 bar, and the boiling point at just over 1.1 bar is... around 104 degrees C, I believe.

So either he's not boiling water at his measured 100C in the E-cat, or he's not flowing 7l/hr. He can't be doing both.
even if one has to assume little to no back pressure, and 101'C constant on all e-Cat and tube, the point that chris showed with his experiment is clear. There is not enough flow of steam in Krivit video to justify a 5 Kw/h (or even 4 Kw/h if we remove thermal dispersions) steam flow.

I agree. I could not put my finger on what has bothered me about the demos until this discussion. Claimed energy levels do not seem to be exiting the device at the rates suggested.

Horatius
24th June 2011, 11:58 AM
... or if you said to Dr. Steven Novella "show me one paper that proves vaccines don't cause autism"?



Looks to me (http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/yet-more-evidence-against-a-link-between-thimerosal-and-autism/) like he'd link you to one (http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/another-study-showing-lack-of-correlation-between-mercury-and-autism/).

Or two :D

Captain_Swoop
24th June 2011, 12:56 PM
They HAVE to. A steam engine's efficiency is proportional to the pressure, and pressure is proportional (when the throttle is closed) to the temperature.

But steam is only entering the superheater when the throttle valve is open so max temp and pressure of steam is only produced after the throttle valve.

Dancing David
24th June 2011, 01:00 PM
Dancing David



This betrays a complete lack of any interest in digging for information about these experiments yourself.

The answers to these questions have been so thoroughly talked about with regards to the e-cat observations that if you haven't already seen it then you just aren't paying attention.

or you are just a blow hard.


This type of post is a good example of the type of question that won't get a detailed response from me. It is so basic and absolutely hashed out elsewhere that restating it here is pointless.

Show the evidence then.


You may have noticed by now that I find the tone of your posts annoying. This is partly because you often make poorly researched assumptions and then expect me to correct you and with thoroughly researched and proven responses. Which you then don't acknowledge. I find this insulting.

You show your lack of ability to engage in critical debate.


What I find even more annoying is that the tone of your posts betray an extreme disinterest in actually finding the truth in this matter. Posts like "link one paper that proves cold fusion is real!" are the best examples of this. It sounds exactly like a creationist would say if you replaced cold fusion with evolution.

Now you are stating a lie and a rather bold one at that, i asked what research paper you liked about LENR and to present it first. But you refuse then as well, it had nothing to do with my tone, it has to do with teh lack of evidence.


From my perspective you seem like a creationist. You seem to be using the same "tactics" they use in order to "win" a debate with me. I wonder what richard dawkins would say to you if you said "show me one paper that proves evolution"

gee I wonder how many papers are published on nylonase and anti-biotic resistance?

or if you said to Dr. Steven Novella "show me one paper that proves vaccines don't cause autism"?
Nice moving the goal posts, the burden is on the one making a claim.

there is no evidence i have seen to show that they did an accurate measure of the water input, at 7 kg/hr
I am calling your bluff, you show me how they measured the flow at 7 kg./hr. , I don't think you have source on how they measured it, so you blow hard with rhetoric and puff yourself up and pretend that it is my lack of looking.

Uh huh, I don't think you have anything to show that they measured the flow and so you are just posturing.

Unlike you I do stand by my words, so

You show me that they measured the flow in an accurate fashion, other than the link I provided that it was an estimate. I will do something people who use rhetoric never do. I tender a formal apology to you in thee Forum Community.

I think you are just posing and waving your arms, just as you can't come up with research that supports LENR, I will be very surprised if you furnish evidence of an accurate measurement of 7 kg./hr.

I don't need to compare you to a creationist, you destroy your own credibility by not presenting a citation to support your claim that there was an accurate measurement of the rate of water flow.

You have said it has been hashed out but not citations.

You are emptyhanded.

CaveDave
24th June 2011, 01:32 PM
The input power is clearly shown in the video.

The output power is measured by the technique described by rossi in his calculation.

Do you want me to write out the calculation?

The Krivit video is very light on data. No conclusion can be drawn from it without more information. Dancing David no doubt understands this and so asks rhetorical questions.

The measurement of superheated steam at atmospheric pressure is a well published technique used for high pressure steam quality measurement. The difference in this case is that Rossi claims to generate superheated steam at atmospheric pressure. This is possible if heating of the water vapor occurs after boiling.

Or if the pressure is lowered from chamber to outlet...

Here is a link to a page that will teach you the how to calculate steam quality by the standard technique. Which is what rossi is using. It took me five seconds to find this information.

http://www.plantservices.com/articles/2003/378.html

The obvious source of error in the experiment is the temperature of the steam and the pressure at the chimney exit. This is very basic stuff. If you need it to be explained to you it is unlikely that you can contribute to a valuable discussion of the rossi results.

If you already understand it then please stop wasting my time. If you care enough you can find several calculations of possible errors in the rossi temperature and pressure measurements. I find none of them explain away the result as simple error.

I am not here to lead you by the nose to data and teach you how to do calculations. If you want to challenge the Rossi result on the basis of measured values and quantitative calculations then you will have to find and present data on your own.

Did Rossi actually measure electrical power in, water flow rate in, water temp, ambient pressure (at the test location, as the pressure in a building can be different from that outside), and outlet temp using instruments of stated accuracy at the time of the test and use those in his calculation, and NONE of them were assumed from previous measurements?

Can you kindly (for those among us who cannot find it ourselves :)), point (link) to a specific location where ALL of these are answered for any single test and documented with the error budget for each? How about would you please clip a quote and pasting it for us (since you seem to be intimately familiar with all this, and could find it at a moments notice), instead of us having to exhaustively search through all the diverse references to collect them?

Is there actually a single source of all this data on any given test, with absolutely no assumptions or "estimations" having been made? If not, why?

I eagerly await your demonstration and presentation of this data.:)

Cheers,

Dave

Crawdaddy
24th June 2011, 02:01 PM
Horatius

Looks to me like he'd link you to one.

Or two

And If I was a nutjjob like Jenny McCarthy I would say that the first link only talks about thimerosal and not the other components of the vaccine or the special properties of a certain mixture of different vaccine given at a certain time of day! Therefore that link does not prove that vaccines don't cause autism!

Anyone interested in the pursuit of knowledge by a science based approach knows that no one experiment can definitively prove anything! All you can show is that under certain controlled conditions you get a result. A massive body of evidence must be reported and understood before you can be reasonably certain of anything in a scientific context.

HoverBoarder

Sure, but the posters on those threads have still overwhelmingly concluded that the Rossi claims are faked.

I am well aware of these threads... The person quoted in the post you linked was crawdaddy (that guy is a douche)!

These results are very interesting but are by no means conclusive or overwhelming at their present level of sophistication. I am following them with great interest.

The discussion you linked to is however an excellent example rational skepticism at it's best. The same cannot be said for this thread.

BenBurch
24th June 2011, 02:26 PM
But steam is only entering the superheater when the throttle valve is open so max temp and pressure of steam is only produced after the throttle valve.

Not all steam engines are superheated, and in particular I have never seen a superheater in anything smaller than 15" gauge.

I was referring to the temperature/pressure inside the boiler, anyway, and not the steam chest pressure/temperature.

BenBurch
24th June 2011, 02:32 PM
...

Or if the pressure is lowered from chamber to outlet...

...

You need VERY hot steam to run through a pressure-reducer like a throttle valve and still remain dry steam - because pressure reducers drop temperature, and in fact can be used to control temperature of process steam.

This is one reason superheaters are downstream from the throttle

Crawdaddy
24th June 2011, 02:44 PM
Dancing David

I think you are just posing and waving your arms, just as you can't come up with research that supports LENR, I will be very surprised if you furnish evidence of an accurate measurement of 7 kg./hr.

As anyone with a background in science and an interest in the e-cat knows an LMI P18 model pump was used in the steam generating tests to date.

http://lmipumps.org/lmi-series-p-metering-pumps/

As you continue to harp on the measurement of the flow rate you are obviously not familiar with this style of pump which displace a constant volume per stroke of a piston. If you listen carefully to the videos you can hear each pulse of liquid as the pump strokes at a constant rate.

These types of pumps are ubiquitous in experiments that require a precisely measured volume of liquid to be pumped reliably and a short perusal of the manual for the pump:

http://www.lmi-pumps.com/Manuals/157983_1615n.pdf

should convince you that the manufacturer recommended calibration is similar to that performed by rossi.

a further reading of the manual will convince you that the back pressure does not affect the flow rate of this pump unless the back pressure approaches 80PSI or around 6 atmospheres of pressure and even then the change would be immediately apparent to any observer because the pump would stall and the sound of the stoke pattern would change or cease.

It would be almost impossible to accidentally mis-measure the flow rate of this pump.

The measurement is further confirmed in several of the experiments by weighing the reservoir before and and after the experiment!

These types of pumps make a distinctive noise that is as regular as clockwork and the noise is exactly the same on every pump stroke. Even if rossi were a fraudster it would be extremely difficult to change the flow rate of this pump without immediately tipping you hand to any observer.

I hope you find this explanation as boring as I found it to write.

The next time you have a question about something don't accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about before you do a bit of research yourself.

BenBurch
24th June 2011, 02:55 PM
You might think you understood that, but clearly you didn't.

Aepervius
24th June 2011, 03:01 PM
These types of pumps make a distinctive noise that is as regular as clockwork and the noise is exactly the same on every pump stroke. Even if rossi were a fraudster it would be extremely difficult to change the flow rate of this pump without immediately tipping you hand to any observer.

Hm. So if one imitate the noise of the pump a way or anotehr, you can fool an observer :D ?

Horatius
24th June 2011, 03:06 PM
Horatius

And If I was a nutjjob like Jenny McCarthy I would say that the first link only talks about thimerosal and not the other components of the vaccine or the special properties of a certain mixture of different vaccine given at a certain time of day! Therefore that link does not prove that vaccines don't cause autism!



You know who moves goal posts after one of their claims has been shown to be ********, rather than simply admitting they were ********ting?


Creationists.

Crawdaddy
24th June 2011, 03:32 PM
Horatius

You know who moves goal posts after one of their claims has been shown to be ********, rather than simply admitting they were ********ting?


Creationists.

exactly my point. Thank you for making it.

Jimmy42
24th June 2011, 04:46 PM
It would be almost impossible to accidentally mis-measure the flow rate of this pump.


A little work on the check valves and maybe an orifice and the pump could be tweaked for reduced output. The pump is designed to be precise, not fraud-proof. Anyway, the water could be filling up a table leg.

Dancing David
24th June 2011, 06:07 PM
Thanks for the response, I do not do this to be annoying but to learn, I am spending most of my study time on learning to remove malware currently.

Dancing David



As anyone with a background in science and an interest in the e-cat knows an LMI P18 model pump was used in the steam generating tests to date.

http://lmipumps.org/lmi-series-p-metering-pumps/

That is better but not adequate.


As you continue to harp on the measurement of the flow rate you are obviously not familiar with this style of pump which displace a constant volume per stroke of a piston. If you listen carefully to the videos you can hear each pulse of liquid as the pump strokes at a constant rate.

I am familiar to some extent, but again, the data is not offered, so where is the source that says what settings they used?

Oh, I forgot we just take them a face value, because they are special.

Rossi claims 7 kg / hr, so what setting was used on the pump and who calibrated it?

Oh, I know those annoying details that just aren't provided.


These types of pumps are ubiquitous in experiments that require a precisely measured volume of liquid to be pumped reliably and a short perusal of the manual for the pump:

http://www.lmi-pumps.com/Manuals/157983_1615n.pdf

should convince you that the manufacturer recommended calibration is similar to that performed by rossi.

I haven't seen anything about the calibration by Rossi, so might as well say that Bigfoot Did IT and is Never Wrong.


a further reading of the manual will convince you that the back pressure does not affect the flow rate of this pump unless the back pressure approaches 80PSI or around 6 atmospheres of pressure and even then the change would be immediately apparent to any observer because the pump would stall and the sound of the stoke pattern would change or cease.

And some of the threads on Polywell discuss that the stroke rate does not sound right as well.

So data, you know that pesky thing?

how was it calibrated? By whom, in what setting that produced 7 kg / hr.


It would be almost impossible to accidentally mis-measure the flow rate of this pump.

Sure uhuh, more man behind the curtain.

So who did the calibration for the 7 kg / hr ?


The measurement is further confirmed in several of the experiments by weighing the reservoir before and and after the experiment!

Ah yes, but did they do that for the 7 kg/hr, had they and if you had provided some evidence of that, then your apology would already have been posted.

So did they measure by weight or volume the rate of 7 kg/hr?


These types of pumps make a distinctive noise that is as regular as clockwork and the noise is exactly the same on every pump stroke. Even if rossi were a fraudster it would be extremely difficult to change the flow rate of this pump without immediately tipping you hand to any observer.

Hmm, some of the Polywell threads and posts say just that, that the volume can not be as stated.


I hope you find this explanation as boring as I found it to write.

The next time you have a question about something don't accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about before you do a bit of research yourself.

So you still don't know what data and evidence are?

I am shocked.

My accusation is that you did not provide evidence of the flow rate being 7 kg/hr.

Guess what, that is not an accusation, it is fact.

You still haven't. I do not accuse, I stated that the evidence had not been presented to justify an accurate measurement. It is closer but still not there.

Usually when people when cite research they can go right to the source and quote it. I think Rossi is not publishing his results very well, that is why.

Why is that? Where is his data?

I certainly don't think that is your fault, but Rossi seems to not want things stated clearly.

So maybe just cite the source and I won’t annoy you any more.

Dancing David
24th June 2011, 06:09 PM
A little work on the check valves and maybe an orifice and the pump could be tweaked for reduced output. The pump is designed to be precise, not fraud-proof. Anyway, the water could be filling up a table leg.

Ah well, that would be fraud, which is another matter.

CaveDave
25th June 2011, 12:54 AM
You need VERY hot steam to run through a pressure-reducer like a throttle valve and still remain dry steam - because pressure reducers drop temperature, and in fact can be used to control temperature of process steam.

This is one reason superheaters are downstream from the throttle

I was meaning that if the pipe bore was giving a small delta P along its length - almost certain for all but very large diameter or very short pipes, or very low flows - what was "wet" steam inside the generator (at a slightly higher press.) would become saturated or slightly superheated at a point with a slightly reduced pressure, before the excess heat could dissipate. N'est-ce pas?

Cheers,

Dave



[QUOTE]

CaveDave
25th June 2011, 01:43 AM
Dancing David



As anyone with a background in science and an interest in the e-cat knows an LMI P18 model pump was used in the steam generating tests to date.

http://lmipumps.org/lmi-series-p-metering-pumps/

As you continue to harp on the measurement of the flow rate you are obviously not familiar with this style of pump which displace a constant volume per stroke of a piston. If you listen carefully to the videos you can hear each pulse of liquid as the pump strokes at a constant rate.

These types of pumps are ubiquitous in experiments that require a precisely measured volume of liquid to be pumped reliably and a short perusal of the manual for the pump:

http://www.lmi-pumps.com/Manuals/157983_1615n.pdf

should convince you that the manufacturer recommended calibration is similar to that performed by rossi.

a further reading of the manual will convince you that the back pressure does not affect the flow rate of this pump unless the back pressure approaches 80PSI or around 6 atmospheres of pressure and even then the change would be immediately apparent to any observer because the pump would stall and the sound of the stoke pattern would change or cease.

It would be almost impossible to accidentally mis-measure the flow rate of this pump.

The measurement is further confirmed in several of the experiments by weighing the reservoir before and and after the experiment!

These types of pumps make a distinctive noise that is as regular as clockwork and the noise is exactly the same on every pump stroke. Even if rossi were a fraudster it would be extremely difficult to change the flow rate of this pump without immediately tipping you hand to any observer.

I hope you find this explanation as boring as I found it to write.

The next time you have a question about something don't accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about before you do a bit of research yourself.

While the above is true, it is not complete.:)

I have used this brand and style of pump in the past, over several years.

These pumps use variable pulse rate and variable stroke length to control output.
ETA: IIRC, there are some combinations of speed and stroke that are not as reliable (flow-rate wise) because of filling time and stroke length interaction. Also any air (compressible medium) that is not purged from the chamber will play hob with the flow.

The speed (pulse/min.) is controlled by a pot with a small knob on the apron of the base. The volume (stroke length) is controlled by a mechanical threaded shaft (screw) acting as a stop for the solenoid armature. This is operated by a large knob on the rear (opposite of the hydraulic head) face of the cylindrical body. the knob is large (2-3" dia.) and can easily be knocked off setting by simply "brushing" against it in passing. These have a marked shock that occurs on each stroke, and this can, under certain conditions, cause a "self adjusting" to occur (this happened to me, and I thought someone was tampering, until I caught it in the act) unless the knob is locked (IIRC, there is a built in lock, but it is non-obvious and requires a hex wrench to set).

IOW, the fact that the stroke rate change would be obvious does not prevent tampering or accident from having altered the output.

Cheers,

Dave

Craig B
26th June 2011, 02:02 AM
Has anyone noticed this curiosity in the Defkalion marketing publicity produced for the June 23 conference? http://www.defkalion-energy.com/White%20Paper_DGT.pdf (page 7).

They are going to sell the right to manufacture the Hyperion components – not the components themselves - which are to be be bolted on to the e-cat “kernel” to be manufactured supposedly in the near future.

They will also sell “transfer of knowledge” whatever that may be. And once customers have “bought” all this, Defkalion will deign to “supply ... on generated demand” the e-cat on a plug and play basis to these lucky folks.

Can some lawyer tell us all why the other stuff is to be “sold”, while the only interesting part of the deal – the magic box – is to be “supplied”? Is this significant?

Be it noted that Edison sold phonographs, and Ford sold cars. Defkalion sells licenses to make things that’ll be useless without the magic box, and I’m pretty sure we’ll still be waiting for "generated demand" to trigger the "supply" of these some time from now.

Or am I just being overly suspicious?

nathan
26th June 2011, 02:32 AM
Has anyone noticed this curiosity in the Defkalion marketing publicity produced for the June 23 conference?

Sometimes I wonder if I'm being ignored:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7309747#post7309747

Aepervius
26th June 2011, 03:04 AM
Or am I just being overly suspicious?

No you are not. The same way Steorn organized its "proposed" sales.

I hink they simply want to make a run around some consumer protection law and fraud stopping agency, by "giving" or "supplying" the part for which any claim could land them in hot water if the claim can't be checked (eCat) while making their lard on the rest. As Nathan said, it also allow them a ncie escape way.

This stinked of scam before, now the smells is so solid you can butt your head against it.

Captain_Swoop
26th June 2011, 03:06 AM
Not all steam engines are superheated, and in particular I have never seen a superheater in anything smaller than 15" gauge.

I was referring to the temperature/pressure inside the boiler, anyway, and not the steam chest pressure/temperature.

A lot of Engineering models are for example even this little Saddle Tank has one
http://www.ptmachining.co.uk/sadletnk.htm

and a 5" gauge 'Brittania' builr from a 'semi kit'

I have seen Gauge 1 locomotives with Superheaters.

I don't know if they actualy increase the efficiency be a lot but they certainly act as steam dryers.

Sorry for the derail

Craig B
26th June 2011, 03:19 AM
Aepervius, thanks.

Nathan

Sometimes I wonder if I'm being ignored:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...47#post7309747
Nathan, you're not being ignored, and my post above should have referred to your contribution. Sorry.

This time I was looking specifically at the distinction between "sale" and "supply" and the condition of "generated demand" attached to the latter, which I hadn't noticed before, not solely at the two-tier marketing, which your earlier post plausibly accounted for. Is this distinction made by Defkalion intentional and significant?

Do "suplyees" have fewer rights than purchasers in relation to defective or undelivered products? That was my question, basically.

catsmate1
26th June 2011, 04:31 AM
This gets more hilarious every time I look.
Indeed.

But the courts are not going to find this to be funny.
Rossi's not exactly a stranger to being in court.



So, still no proof offered by Rossi and his supporters that his magic generator actually works? Colour me surprised.:rolleyes:

catsmate1
26th June 2011, 04:33 AM
What concerns me the most (apart from the traditional Wright brothers reference on page 9 of the Defkalion paper - at least they leave Galileo's ghost in peace!)
And him an Italian; perhaps the Crackpot Index needs a revision.


What concerns me the most (apart from the traditional Wright brothers reference on page 9 of the Defkalion paper - at least they leave Galileo's ghost in peace!) is the marketing strategy outlined on page 7: Defkalion shall sell the rights to manufacture its products (presumably the bolt-on "Hyperion" components) while the e-cat "kernel" is manufactured by as yet unrecruited and untrained workers in as yet unbuilt units in Xanthi, Thrace.
It gives Rossi and co. someone else to spread the blame onto when no magic generators are actually delivered.

Interesting that Defkalion should use the name Hyperion for its power units, because there's already a company, Hyperion Power Generation, with a comparable product - mini nuclear reactors - and very similar motives and aspirations:
This appears to be a standard MO for Rossi's frauds; parasite off the name of an existing company.

For more sceptical views of the Defkalion announcement, please see the comments at: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/defkalion-green-technologies-new.html
I like the first comment:
So I heard about this Rossi fellow through the grapevine and have spent all morning reading up on him and his invention. Sadly, this seems like a pretty obvious scam. Incredible claims that require a revision of well established scientific theory to make sense, a history of failed inventions, unnecessary lack of verifiable evidence, strange discussion of 'self destruction' mechanisms to protect the design, refusal to allow study by other scientists, indirect solicitation of investment through this Defkalion company, data that doesn't seem to make any sense, shady demonstrations... the list goes on. I am really confused regarding how any company could invest so heavily in something so suspect, it makes me wonder if these Defkalion people represent a legitimate operation.

This seems like textbook fraud. Defkalion collects the cash, something goes horribly wrong, the invention is indefinitely postponed until Rossi et al return a majority of the investment except a small portion that would of course have already been spent. I hope this guy ends up in prison. An excellent summary of the situation.

Craig B
26th June 2011, 08:14 AM
BeAChooser post #1206 has informed us, quoting (with seeming approval) Rossi writing in "freeenergytimes" The only money that has been risked is my money. This way I have cut all the voices about this guy is trying to make some trick, etc, etc. ... The rules are very clear here. Money will change hands only if the plant will work. No good work, no money for anybody and a loss of money for me. which has been the main argument that this isn't a scam. In the light of the Defkalion announcements, are you sticking with that, BeAChooser?

HoverBoarder
26th June 2011, 10:09 AM
I am well aware of these threads... The person quoted in the post you linked was crawdaddy (that guy is a douche)!

These results are very interesting but are by no means conclusive or overwhelming at their present level of sophistication. I am following them with great interest.

The discussion you linked to is however an excellent example rational skepticism at it's best. The same cannot be said for this thread.

I guess, but you seemed to have the same problem in that thread as you are having in this one.

When someone calls you out on a claim you have made that is erroneous, you simply ignore it. The main one being the "quality of steam" argument that you also make here.

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2829&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=2805
The key thing I am trying to show is what 25g/min of emitted vapour looks like coming out of a pipe. Rossi is claiming 7l/hr, which is about 5 times the quantity of emitted water vapour than I am showing here.

So the question is, does Rossi's tube [top picture] look like it is emitting 5 times the quantity that is shown being emitted in my demo [bottom picture]?
Don't get me wrong, I am totally on board with your experiment and appreciate the effort you are putting into it, but without proper measurement of the input energy you can't compare your steam to Rossi's because dry steam is invisible.
Well, that might be the case but that even though air is invisible, if it is moving you can see which direction it pushes the clouds!!!

Actually, it seems to me to be a bit obvious that my steam is drier - at the immediate exit of the tube there is no visible steam in mine, yet there is visible steam in Rossi's tube. If Rossi had a pile of invisible steam coming out with it, wouldn't it push that visible steam straight out of the pipe rather than it drifiting upwards?

The quality of steam argument is not a valid argument because if this were the case, the speed of the visible steam coming out of Rossi's hose would be at a higher velocity. If you take out the "quality of steam" argument, than you are left once again with the conclusion that Rossi was being dishonest about the volume of water entering his unit (which CaveDave pointed out how this was possible using the pumping unit).

It is also not correct to say that there is not enough data in the Krivit demo to come to any conclusions. There are three pieces of evidence that we do have of the demo that are very important for making a conclusion (these are all included in the quotes from the Polywell discussion):

1) you can see Rossi pouring water out of the tube before pulling it out of the wall.
2) Rossi holds the pipe between his fingers for several seconds which would not have been possible if the amount of steam that Rossi claims was accurate and honest.
3) Rossi's claim of 100C at the end of the pipe which would require a 100% insulated pipe is physically impossible. Which is yet another dishonest claim form Rossi.


When you add in the Nytek video where you can clearly hear condensate bubbling in the pipe, Rossi's history of dishonest scams, and the clear steps of scam-like behavior from Defkalion, you are left with no data whatsoever that shows any of Rossi's claims to be real, and an enormous mountain of data that shows it to be faked.

CaveDave
26th June 2011, 02:19 PM
Sometimes I wonder if I'm being ignored:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7309747#post7309747

Oh, you noticed. Now it's no fun anymore.:D

Dave

Reality Check
26th June 2011, 04:12 PM
Reality check

There is a giant thread filled with links to all the experiments and data available to date on the net. You are posting on it.

Crawdaddy

I have read through this giant thread and seen

patent applications
web site citations
thread citations
and lots of problems with those

unsupported asserions of nickel being transmuted into copper (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6785595#post6785595).
a board of advisors that seems to include an imaginary person (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6779408#post6779408).
a statement that "no radiation escapes due to lead shielding" - where are the measurements of the radiation within the lead shielding?
the problems with the crude instrumentation used was outlined by ben m back in February (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6864674#post6864674).
A badly done experiment may as well never have been done.
Charitably we might say that Rossi has been fooled by the crude instrumentation and lack of calibration. But the latest news about soliciting money for this non-result suggests other motivations such as fraud.

HoverBoarder
26th June 2011, 04:53 PM
Here is a pretty good new video that just came out on Rossi's device.

While I am pretty much 100% convinced that Rossi's device is fake based on all of the evidence that I have seen that points that way, this was an interesting story, and there were two parts that I thought were the most interesting.

- 11:00 to 11:50 shows renderings of the insides of the E-Cat machine (this was particularly interesting because I have never seen renderings of the device before)

- 30:30 to 32:35, talks about Defkalon, and the millions of Euros of "investments" that they have been collecting

S7lAlzMBzLQ

Craig B
27th June 2011, 06:48 AM
Anyone like to look at this new article in New Energy and Power? http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2011/06/27/established-physics-has-another-new-fusion-problem/#respond

Established Physics just got itself another new fusion problem! As if the Rossi e-cat wasn't bad enough it's now got this on its plate:

Brillouin Energy Corp In Berkeley California has another Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) method in the development and proving stage. The new method comes at fusion from a different path than the Rossi E-Cat. The reports have the Brillouin at nearly 2 times the energy coming out from that going in. If this is real the established physicists have a new “won’t fit” phenomena [sic] to cope with.

Among the backers is an old friend Michael C.H. McKubre PhD., Director, Energy Research Center, Stanford Research Institute, for whom see post #1594. The others I will research presently, but Holden looks interesting already. See http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2011/05/third-thorium-energy-alliance-marks.html

Brillouin LENR works because in simple terms, it uses an electromagnetic pulse slamming into hydrogen or H1. The pulse pushes some of the hydrogen into dihydrogen or H2 and on to H3 and H4. Finally some hydrogen molecules reach the stage of helium. The method generates heat – more heat energy than electrical energy used to run the pulse.

Any comments on the plausibility of this "slamming" process?

nathan
27th June 2011, 07:16 AM
Any comments on the plausibility of this "slamming" process?

The description is gibberish. 'dihydrogen', is that like regular H2 gas, or is it deuterium, or is it He2 (which doesn't exist). Similarly for 'H3' and 'H4'.

ETA: He2 -> He2

Craig B
27th June 2011, 07:16 AM
The founder of the company involved in this LENR project is a VERY interesting person, somehow eerily typical of cold fusion promoters. Complex business deals, and not boring Establishment Science, seem to be his forte. See http://efie.net/

Meanwhile, a little digging will show Mr. Robert E. Godes is an electrical engineer with it seems, a penchant for looking at things without the narrowed view of advanced degrees....

Profusion Energy ran on Godes’ cash lending and when the wall was hit in 2008 the property of Profusion, patents, property and assets returned to Godes for settlement of the debt. In 2009 with no revenues, but with a working unit and testing results Godes was able to startup with some outside capital. Brillouin started up with services of MCM Group, Inc., Grosvenor Financial Partners, LLC, and the patent lawyers in exchange for founders stock. In February 2009, Mr. Godes transferred his patent applications and other intellectual property to Brillouin. This may sound a little convoluted, but Godes managed to keep the intellectual property in control as the second phase of getting to a business proposition stopped and the third stage got underway. Some will find this suspicious, but its not: its just good business sense.